Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,963
Reply with quote  #61 
<< Their conference schedule isn't great which is basically half of their schedule >> (smcouvillion)


They play 18 conference games.
There are only seven softball teams in that conference.

Let's see... 
Get out the calculator... 
18 x 2 = 36.

I'd have to check the schedule... 
but I think they play MORE than 36 total games.
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,963
Reply with quote  #62 
<< I don't believe so, either 3-5. Their conference schedule isn't great which is basically half of their schedule, the only top 25 rpi teams they played in the rest of the schedule was ASU, Arizona, South Carolina, Oregon, and Oregon State. Plus they lost to boston and arizona. Oregon and OSU are yet to come. >> (scmouvillion)

<< Their conference schedule is 18 games plus the conference tournament, which is closer to a third than a half. They are on pace to be the undefeated champion of the #3 rated conference (according to rpi), they have 11 regular season games left all against teams with winning records, 1 top 10 team, 2 top 20 and 6 top 35 (at the moment). Yes, there are a lot of games left to play, not just theirs, but other teams as well, but they are certainly in a prime position to be either the #1 or #2 seed in the NCAA tournament. >> (LCITSH)

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

Thanks for jumping in... with a bucket of wisdom, Terrell.
You got to it well before I did... so thank you.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,070
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
<< Don't pay attention to the W-L....RPI accounts for THAT.
The T10 wins are like rocket fuel for consideration, IMO >> (3LT)

<< Oregon State is 2-8 vs top 10 and 3-14 vs top 25 >> (sMurph)

<< Exactly.  They have one more top 10 win than Iowa. >> (midwestfp)

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

It is kind of amazing how EIGHT top ten LOSSES... 
and FOURTEEN top 25 LOSSES... 
can fuel a team's RPI.

THREE wins out of SEVENTEEN vs. the top 25...???

How does that translate...?


Because, PLAYING those games is encouraged. Period
surfinusa

Registered:
Posts: 74
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph



Isn't the "in Oregon" thing the same as the long standing argument that the WCWS is "in Oklahoma" so an OU advantage. It would be a helluva achievement for either team to sweep. I would predict a 2-1 series win for Oregon. Their record against that schedule (UCLA, Ariz, UGA, FSU, LSU) is very impressive.


No, it's not the same thing as "in Oklahoma."  The Sooners are the #2 team and Oregon is #3.  To be the "in Oregon" or the "in Oklahoma" comparison, you'd have to consider that # 15 Oregon State and #24 Stillwater Cowgirls are powerhouses. They aren't. 

The Sooners and the Ducks will be a bell-weather game and all eyes will be on it.  It's a big time game whether it is played in Eugene or in Norman. 

As far as the OKC argument, it didn't come up until the Sooners began to seriously challenge for the Championship.  Every team gets the same allotment of tickets for their season ticket holders.  Additional tickets can be purchased through the box office and Stub Hub.  I would expect Florida, UCLA, Oregon and other teams will have fans that make the trip because they think their team could win it all.  Other invitees may not feel as confident and not as many fans will spend the money to go to OKC.

If the WCWS was played in Los Angeles people would moan that its a Bruins "advantage."  Or if it was in Orlando, it would be Florida's "advantage."  Or if it was Atlanta, it would be the SEC "advantage."  It's not about OKC, its the nature of the teams' chances and the cost of travel.

The WCWS is in OKC because of the rich softball history there AND the fact that OKC pours taxpayer money into facility improvements and cash flow to hold the event.  OKC is in the middle of the country which balances travel costs for all teams invited.

The OKC City Council just voted $25 million to expand the seating and facilities at the stadium.  The current contract with the NCAA runs until 2035. It's really a non-argument because it won't change anytime soon. 



3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,070
Reply with quote  #65 
Why it is more important than ever to have instant replay challenges
Sec_fan91

Registered:
Posts: 2,915
Reply with quote  #66 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
Why it is more important than ever to have instant replay challenges


If only we could use those on illegal pitchers 🤷🏻‍♂️
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,963
Reply with quote  #67 
<< Don't pay attention to the W-L....RPI accounts for THAT.
The T10 wins are like rocket fuel for consideration, IMO >> (3LT)

<< Oregon State is 2-8 vs top 10 and 3-14 vs top 25 >> (sMurph)

<< Exactly.  They have one more top 10 win than Iowa. >> (midwestfp)

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

<< It is kind of amazing how EIGHT top ten LOSSES... 
and FOURTEEN top 25 LOSSES... 
can fuel a team's RPI.

THREE wins out of SEVENTEEN vs. the top 25...???

How does that translate...? >> (me)

==================================================
==================================================

<< Because, PLAYING those games is encouraged. Period >> (3LT)

It seems to me...
that a team with only THREE wins out of SEVENTEEN vs. the top 25 teams... 
doesn't really appear to be a top 25 team.
If they can only win at a .176 rate against teams in the top 25... how does that make them a top 25 team..?

This particular piece of information (3-14 vs. top 25) should make us all wonder...
if the RPI formula just might be rewarding participating in games vs. the top 25... too much.
If all you have to do is play those games (as if the winning and losing of them is inconsequential)... 
that seems a bit bogus  to me.

I'd like to see the records of all the top 35 or 40 teams vs. the top 25...
and see just how the Oregon State record "vs. the top 25" (which is obviously quite poor) stacks up against the other teams.
I don't have the time to do it  right now... so feel free to do it - if you like.

I'm thinking that perhaps the RPI formula needs to give these losses more negative weight in their system.
And perhaps those wins deserve more positive weight in their system.

What do you think..?  Does that sort of adjustment seem like it might just be appropriate..?
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,070
Reply with quote  #68 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
<< Don't pay attention to the W-L....RPI accounts for THAT.
The T10 wins are like rocket fuel for consideration, IMO >> (3LT)

<< Oregon State is 2-8 vs top 10 and 3-14 vs top 25 >> (sMurph)

<< Exactly.  They have one more top 10 win than Iowa. >> (midwestfp)

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

<< It is kind of amazing how EIGHT top ten LOSSES... 
and FOURTEEN top 25 LOSSES... 
can fuel a team's RPI.

THREE wins out of SEVENTEEN vs. the top 25...???

How does that translate...? >> (me)

==================================================
==================================================

<< Because, PLAYING those games is encouraged. Period >> (3LT)

It seems to me...
that a team with only THREE wins out of SEVENTEEN vs. the top 25 teams... 
doesn't really appear to be a top 25 team.
If they can only win at a .176 rate against teams in the top 25... how does that make them a top 25 team..?

This particular piece of information (3-14 vs. top 25) should make us all wonder...
if the RPI formula just might be rewarding participating in games vs. the top 25... too much.
If all you have to do is play those games (as if the winning and losing of them is inconsequential)... 
that seems a bit bogus  to me.

I'd like to see the records of all the top 35 or 40 teams vs. the top 25...
and see just how the Oregon State record "vs. the top 25" (which is obviously quite poor) stacks up against the other teams.
I don't have the time to do it  right now... so feel free to do it - if you like.

I'm thinking that perhaps the RPI formula needs to give these losses more negative weight in their system.
And perhaps those wins deserve more positive weight in their system.

What do you think..?  Does that sort of adjustment seem like it might just be appropriate..?
oregon state has five top 25 wins. And the multiple top 10s.

You must encourage teams to not try pulling a Minnesota and force them to play those games.

The win percentage of 5 for 19 doesn't matter nearly as much as the 19.

but even if osu goes ofer against oklahoma and washington, those 5 t25 wins will be right there for top 16 consideration .... what I have noticed IS that you need at least four t25 ws to have any shot to host....
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,963
Reply with quote  #69 
<< oregon state has five top 25 wins. And the multiple top 10s. >> (3LT)

<< Oregon State is 2-8 vs top 10 and 3-14 vs top 25 >> (sMurph)

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

So... they are 5-22 (.185) against the top 25..?

FIVE wins to TWENTY-TWO losses..?

That is pretty disturbing.  
Simply participating in a top ten  or a top 25 contest...  seems WAY over valued - to me.

It's almost like the RPI formula was created by one of these parents that wants every participant to get a trophy.
As long as you participate... that's what really matters... 
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,963
Reply with quote  #70 
I say this again... because it needs to be considered...

I'm thinking that perhaps the RPI formula needs to give these losses more negative weight in their system.

And perhaps those wins deserve more positive weight in their system.

What do you think..?  Does that sort of adjustment seem like it might just be appropriate..?
smcouvillion

Registered:
Posts: 441
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
<< oregon state has five top 25 wins. And the multiple top 10s. >> (3LT)

<< Oregon State is 2-8 vs top 10 and 3-14 vs top 25 >> (sMurph)

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

So... they are 5-22 (.185) against the top 25..?

FIVE wins to TWENTY-TWO losses..?

That is pretty disturbing.  
Simply participating in a top ten  or a top 25 contest...  seems WAY over valued - to me.

It's almost like the RPI formula was created by one of these parents that wants every participant to get a trophy.
As long as you participate... that's what really matters... 


No they are 3-14 against the top 25. Top 10 is within the top 25. They play 10 games against top 10 so far and 7 games against 11-25 so far.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,070
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smcouvillion


No they are 3-14 against the top 25. Top 10 is within the top 25. They play 10 games against top 10 so far and 7 games against 11-25 so far.
Oklahoma State moved into the top 25, so the Beavers are 5-14
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 707
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
I say this again... because it needs to be considered...

I'm thinking that perhaps the RPI formula needs to give these losses more negative weight in their system.

And perhaps those wins deserve more positive weight in their system.

What do you think..?  Does that sort of adjustment seem like it might just be appropriate..?


Wins against top 25 are already positively adjusted (+.0026) in rpi. Why would a loss against a top 25 team (or top 10) carry more penalty than a loss to a top 150? You can argue that separately considering top 25 and top 10 wins (in isolation from losses) isn't fair but that doesn't have anything to do with rpi, only the additional considerations of the committee. Of course the reason they look at top 10, top 25 separately is to reward specifically for playing those type of teams.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,070
Reply with quote  #74 
Right, committee considers extra weighting to Top 10s. Also, RPI doesn't have any special accounting for head-to-head, so committee handles that, too (See: Oregon/Washington 2016)
nstinson

Registered:
Posts: 324
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns


Because, PLAYING those games is encouraged. Period


So you are proposing that Oklahoma ducks tough teams and purposefully schedules pansies outside of conference? Our conference is garbage but we can't do anything about that
MOJOERASER

Registered:
Posts: 361
Reply with quote  #76 
Rpi is a dying tool. Basektball and football have went away from using it as tools to select postseason teams. It’s only a matter of time before it happens in softball. If you get 25 chances to beat a top 25 team and you only win 3 there is not any way to justify a rank any better than 22 regardless of no you beat. Losses have to matter and they do not in today’s game.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,070
Reply with quote  #77 
All I am saying is that if you want to host, the best way to get there is by winning at least four Top 25 games. If you want to host supers, it -- usually -- needs some good Top 10 work -- though FSU last year at 4 still blows my mind.... they were DEEPLY rewarded for 3 games played at Oregon in May, I believe.

And, it really doesn't seem to matter how many losses in Top 25 games it takes to get those four-plus wins in comparison with teams who have fewer such wins.
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #78 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerCoach
Michigan will host after winning the B1G regular season and tournament.



There is nothing about winning the Big Ten that qualifies a team to be a top 16 host. 
Sec_fan91

Registered:
Posts: 2,915
Reply with quote  #79 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph



There is nothing about winning the Big Ten that qualifies a team to be a top 16 host. 


Someone must’ve missed the Minnesota fiasco
surfinusa

Registered:
Posts: 74
Reply with quote  #80 
Chris Plank at Soonersports.com interviewed ESPN's Beth Mowens last week.  She said there is much grumbling at many colleges about the RPI.  

Mowens said that the "Committee" is seriously considering adding the "eye test" to the rankings.  She didn't say it directly concerning OU's #10 ranking last year but she said that there are other factors that only a seasoned observer would take into account.

Maybe like a 30 game win streak last year and another one this year for the Sooners.  I think the eye test would also include a realistic assessment of who the hot team(s) are in the WCWS.  The Sooners were definitely the hottest of the bunch last year.
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #81 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOJOERASER
Rpi is a dying tool. Basektball and football have went away from using it as tools to select postseason teams. It’s only a matter of time before it happens in softball. If you get 25 chances to beat a top 25 team and you only win 3 there is not any way to justify a rank any better than 22 regardless of no you beat. Losses have to matter and they do not in today’s game.




Umm ... umm... fake news!  Football does not have RPI. Never have had it. Basketball has expanded the tools they use for selection, but by no means have they eliminated use of the RPI. 
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #82 
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfinusa
Chris Plank at Soonersports.com interviewed ESPN's Beth Mowens last week.  She said there is much grumbling at many colleges about the RPI.  

Mowens said that the "Committee" is seriously considering adding the "eye test" to the rankings.  She didn't say it directly concerning OU's #10 ranking last year but she said that there are other factors that only a seasoned observer would take into account.

Maybe like a 30 game win streak last year and another one this year for the Sooners.  I think the eye test would also include a realistic assessment of who the hot team(s) are in the WCWS.  The Sooners were definitely the hottest of the bunch last year.




In response to a couple things in this post:  OU would not, I repeat, would not have 20 game winning streaks if they competed in the Pac12 or the SEC. That's just apples and oranges. Having said that, they also have clearly the best of one of the best 2 or 3 teams in the country the last couple seasons at the time of selections and the committee has seeded them too low due to over-reliance on the RPI. 

The Softball Committee borders on incompetence. In theory, I absolutely support reducing the reliance on RPI and using other factors including the eye test. But in reality, relying on this committee to effectively do that is a joke. 

I could start listing the incompetent things they have done, and go on for awhile. But the most egregious example is 


sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #83 
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfinusa
Chris Plank at Soonersports.com interviewed ESPN's Beth Mowens last week.  She said there is much grumbling at many colleges about the RPI.  

Mowens said that the "Committee" is seriously considering adding the "eye test" to the rankings.  She didn't say it directly concerning OU's #10 ranking last year but she said that there are other factors that only a seasoned observer would take into account.

Maybe like a 30 game win streak last year and another one this year for the Sooners.  I think the eye test would also include a realistic assessment of who the hot team(s) are in the WCWS.  The Sooners were definitely the hottest of the bunch last year.



_______________________________________________________________________

Regarding the 30 game win streaks, OU would not have 30 game win streaks if they played in the Pac12 or the SEC. That is apples and oranges. But ... clearly OU has been the best or one of the best few teams at the time of selection and have been seeded too low due to over-reliance on the RPI.  No doubt. 

I would be all in for more reliance on the eye test if it weren't for the often demonstrated incompetence of the committee. Just last year, this groups of folks announced and publicized that they were going to have 2 "early reveals" which would improve transparency, let teams know where they stood, and be exciting for fans.

1st early reveal - Minnesota was #8
2nd early reveal - Minnesota was #7

For this entire period, Minnesota was ranked about 11, 12, 13 or so in the RPI and in the top 3 in the polls. 

So basically, the Committee indicated that Minnesota's record warranted a higher seed than their RPI (based on their eye test). This agreed with both the coaches poll and the USA Softball poll. So then when the actual selections were announced, not only did they decide Minnesota did not deserve that top 8 seed afterall, but that they didn't even deserve to host period. They went from concluding that Minn was much better than their RPI to concluding they were much worse in a matter of a couple weeks. By they way, Minn never lost a game in the meantime.  

This post is not about Minnesota. It is about the incompetent committee. They dipped their toe in the "eye test" effort and they failed miserably. They were wrong in the early releases and wrong again in the official one in the opposite direction.   

Their final decision obliterated any credibility they ever had (after seeding Minn in the top 8 earlier). And their decision resulted in a 56-3 team having THE most difficult path to the WCWS of any team in the tournament. It also meant that Alabama would have to beat the #1 and #2 teams in the polls back to back to make the WCWS (unprecedented) and it meant that the #1 seed Florida was treated like anything but a #1 seed. This is the most high profile example of their incompetence, but there are more. Until softball gets a committee with a clue, I vote for basically sticking with the RPI.




cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 707
Reply with quote  #84 
I think the committee did pretty well last year with the final seedings, provided you keep in mind a couple of things: generally the seedings are a reward for performance against strength of schedule played, they are not predicting who will win what games or who is the best team. That said, they do take into account recent developments such as injuries and recent record.

Going into selection, MN had the 113th SOS. Because they had done well against that schedule, their rpi was still pretty high, but it brought up questions like how many top 25 wins (2), how many top 10 (0)? MN's competitors for that final hosting spot all had leaps and bounds better SOS, top 25 wins and top 10 wins. As I've said, I've thought they deserved to host because it's tough to win that many games, but only barely (I had them 16, AL 17).

The pre-reveal apparently didn't include the discussion of top 25, top 10 wins, or so I've heard. At any rate, the whole thing was half-assed together it seems to me.

There were other seedings I didn't particularly agree with and there were some absurd regional pairings but like I said, overall, I thought they did a reasonable job.
surfinusa

Registered:
Posts: 74
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph



_______________________________________________________________________

Regarding the 30 game win streaks, OU would not have 30 game win streaks if they played in the Pac12 or the SEC. That is apples and oranges. But ... clearly OU has been the best or one of the best few teams at the time of selection and have been seeded too low due to over-reliance on the RPI.  No doubt. 

I would be all in for more reliance on the eye test if it weren't for the often demonstrated incompetence of the committee. Just last year, this groups of folks announced and publicized that they were going to have 2 "early reveals" which would improve transparency, let teams know where they stood, and be exciting for fans.

1st early reveal - Minnesota was #8
2nd early reveal - Minnesota was #7

For this entire period, Minnesota was ranked about 11, 12, 13 or so in the RPI and in the top 3 in the polls. 

So basically, the Committee indicated that Minnesota's record warranted a higher seed than their RPI (based on their eye test). This agreed with both the coaches poll and the USA Softball poll. So then when the actual selections were announced, not only did they decide Minnesota did not deserve that top 8 seed afterall, but that they didn't even deserve to host period. They went from concluding that Minn was much better than their RPI to concluding they were much worse in a matter of a couple weeks. By they way, Minn never lost a game in the meantime.  

This post is not about Minnesota. It is about the incompetent committee. They dipped their toe in the "eye test" effort and they failed miserably. They were wrong in the early releases and wrong again in the official one in the opposite direction.   

Their final decision obliterated any credibility they ever had (after seeding Minn in the top 8 earlier). And their decision resulted in a 56-3 team having THE most difficult path to the WCWS of any team in the tournament. It also meant that Alabama would have to beat the #1 and #2 teams in the polls back to back to make the WCWS (unprecedented) and it meant that the #1 seed Florida was treated like anything but a #1 seed. This is the most high profile example of their incompetence, but there are more. Until softball gets a committee with a clue, I vote for basically sticking with the RPI.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed on the basic incompetence of the committee.  Unless real softball people take control of the process it will always have major flaws.  It won't be perfect but it would be better, more fair and realistic.  The only power that could force such a "radical" change (in the minds of the committee) is a combination carrot and stick from ESPN to change the criteria format.  Would ESPN do so?  They are pretty happy with their ratings at the moment and I am not sure that Mowens wasn't paying lip service to the idea of fundamental change.




3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,070
Reply with quote  #86 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph



_______________________________________________________________________

Regarding the 30 game win streaks, OU would not have 30 game win streaks if they played in the Pac12 or the SEC. That is apples and oranges. But ... clearly OU has been the best or one of the best few teams at the time of selection and have been seeded too low due to over-reliance on the RPI.  No doubt. 

I would be all in for more reliance on the eye test if it weren't for the often demonstrated incompetence of the committee. Just last year, this groups of folks announced and publicized that they were going to have 2 "early reveals" which would improve transparency, let teams know where they stood, and be exciting for fans.

1st early reveal - Minnesota was #8
2nd early reveal - Minnesota was #7

For this entire period, Minnesota was ranked about 11, 12, 13 or so in the RPI and in the top 3 in the polls. 

So basically, the Committee indicated that Minnesota's record warranted a higher seed than their RPI (based on their eye test). This agreed with both the coaches poll and the USA Softball poll. So then when the actual selections were announced, not only did they decide Minnesota did not deserve that top 8 seed afterall, but that they didn't even deserve to host period. They went from concluding that Minn was much better than their RPI to concluding they were much worse in a matter of a couple weeks. By they way, Minn never lost a game in the meantime.  

This post is not about Minnesota. It is about the incompetent committee. They dipped their toe in the "eye test" effort and they failed miserably. They were wrong in the early releases and wrong again in the official one in the opposite direction.   

Their final decision obliterated any credibility they ever had (after seeding Minn in the top 8 earlier). And their decision resulted in a 56-3 team having THE most difficult path to the WCWS of any team in the tournament. It also meant that Alabama would have to beat the #1 and #2 teams in the polls back to back to make the WCWS (unprecedented) and it meant that the #1 seed Florida was treated like anything but a #1 seed. This is the most high profile example of their incompetence, but there are more. Until softball gets a committee with a clue, I vote for basically sticking with the RPI.




Like cjs, I really didn't think Minnesota earned a hosting shot (maybe a 15... at the very best).

But other than that.... this post is on point.... those idiotic reveals and then, dropping Minnesota 10 slots in a week where all they had done was win the Big Ten tournament
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,070
Reply with quote  #87 

To surfinusa's last post

Both of the last two years -- at least -- of selections could make a conspiracy person really suspicious that it is ESPN and the SEC pulling the strings on the selections. Last year, the Minnesota post-reveal plummet, and also, really screwing Baylor for the second year in a row...almost knocking THEM out of the top 16.

And that farce in 2016. .... don't get me started

And, now, the moron Pac 12 doesn't have a committee member, just like in 2016, when the top 2 Pac teams were pathed to play in a supers ... AFTER 5 Oregon had 14 RPI Baylor as its No. 2 in the regional instead of 34 Oklahoma State.

If selection day were today, they would maybe throw a bone and have UW No. 1, but only with Oregon State as a 16....

And then Oregon would be 4, UCLA 5, Arizona State 12 and Arizona 13.

HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,963
Reply with quote  #88 
<< And, it really doesn't seem to matter how many losses in Top 25 games it takes to get those four-plus wins in comparison with teams who have fewer such wins. >> (3LT)

Aaaaaahaaaa....

So... THAT is what stinks in the process.

The idea that IT DOESN"T MATTER HOW MANY LOSSES it takes to get 4 wins... 

is freaking NUTS.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,070
Reply with quote  #89 
A team with a 4-4 t25 mark will make it over a 4-11 team. But a 3-4 team? They want to de-incentivize teams who want to build the WP against creampuffs
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #90 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns

To surfinusa's last post

Both of the last two years -- at least -- of selections could make a conspiracy person really suspicious that it is ESPN and the SEC pulling the strings on the selections. Last year, the Minnesota post-reveal plummet, and also, really screwing Baylor for the second year in a row...almost knocking THEM out of the top 16.

And that farce in 2016. .... don't get me started

And, now, the moron Pac 12 doesn't have a committee member, just like in 2016, when the top 2 Pac teams were pathed to play in a supers ... AFTER 5 Oregon had 14 RPI Baylor as its No. 2 in the regional instead of 34 Oklahoma State.

If selection day were today, they would maybe throw a bone and have UW No. 1, but only with Oregon State as a 16....

And then Oregon would be 4, UCLA 5, Arizona State 12 and Arizona 13.

 



How did their treatment of Minnesota favor the SEC?  Answer: It did NOT in any way. 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.