Ultimate College Softball
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Midwest

Registered:
Posts: 90
Reply with quote  #1 
Before I ask let me make the following clear:

1- I very much enjoy watching the level of play the SEC puts forth.

2- I am not a fan of any SEC team.

3- I agree with most that the SEC is best softball conference top to bottom.

With that being said:

Is it right (did not say fair) that all SEC teams make the NCAA tournament?

Yes, they may be 1 of the best 64 teams in the country. If that was the case then why does basketball allow lesser teams in when better teams are obviously left out due to the conference they were in? (ie - any Power 5 school that finish mid pack but misses out to automatic bids.)

I say this because an example was mentioned on another site.

Missouri cancels a DH with a team that could beat them to end up above .500 on the season. Does not even make the conference tourney and still makes the NCAA. I understand RPI but is this right and better yet is it good for the sport?

Just interested in honest fair opinions and debate.

__________________
Just a guy that likes softball.
Sec_fan91

Registered:
Posts: 3,078
Reply with quote  #2 
I think Missouri wasn’t the issue, but will say with full confidence that Texas A&M should not have made the NCAA tournament this past season. That was favoritism through and through.

I am a Gamecock fan, lifelong. I fully support our schools in our conference. However, TAMU got favor from the committee that they should’ve never gotten.

Regardless of what conference you are in, the best 64 need to make the field. Do I want to see my whole conference in? Yes. However, if there is a team more deserving (and there were several more deserving than Texas A&M) then they should make the field.
UGASBFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,964
Reply with quote  #3 
Yeah, I have more issue with A&M making it. Don’t really believe they deserved to get in.
Jdf1316

Registered:
Posts: 44
Reply with quote  #4 
Curious why you feel this way.  Both had roughly the same out of conference and conference records.  
seataz

Registered:
Posts: 87
Reply with quote  #5 
Before I ask let me make the following clear:


3- I agree with most that the SEC is best softball conference top to bottom. I think the Pac 12 will argue with that.


BamaHoHo

Registered:
Posts: 842
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
Before I ask let me make the following clear:

1- I very much enjoy watching the level of play the SEC puts forth.

2- I am not a fan of any SEC team.

3- I agree with most that the SEC is best softball conference top to bottom.

With that being said:

Is it right (did not say fair) that all SEC teams make the NCAA tournament?

Yes, they may be 1 of the best 64 teams in the country. If that was the case then why does basketball allow lesser teams in when better teams are obviously left out due to the conference they were in? (ie - any Power 5 school that finish mid pack but misses out to automatic bids.)

I say this because an example was mentioned on another site.

Missouri cancels a DH with a team that could beat them to end up above .500 on the season. Does not even make the conference tourney and still makes the NCAA. I understand RPI but is this right and better yet is it good for the sport?

Just interested in honest fair opinions and debate.


Softball does the same thing. Conference Champions have an automatic bid.
mizzou5

Registered:
Posts: 52
Reply with quote  #7 
since you mention Mizzou,,, that year they played one of the toughest schedules.
yes it is good,,, the best teams should go.  college is not the place for participation trophys.   
The SEC is one of the toughest schedules.  
I know basketball does participation trophy,, and I rarely watch the play ins
Tsubrian

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #8 
I am a Texas, Baylor, LSU, Tarleton, Texas Tech anything but Texas A&M fan, BUT I will say I felt even though A&M underperformed at regionals last year, they weren’t a slouch. I truly feel had they gotten past Texas, they would’ve been sitting in super regionals. I think They had a horrible horrible horrible preseason and a horrible horrible conference showing as compared to years past. But again I will say they came in they held their own and they made a statement that they at least deserved to be on the field. Do I think another Team could have gone in their place probably yes but I also feel that there were about 10 teams that were seated that probably could’ve had someone else go in their place. But that committee does what they want and they will continue to do what they want to bring in the money. Again I despise A&M but I will fully support their inclusion in the tournament last year.
who were the four that just missed out?

__________________
Sic 'em Bears, Hook 'em Horns and Geaux Tigers
Soonereagle

Registered:
Posts: 52
Reply with quote  #9 
i don't know that the SEC has proved it to me. They only have 3 national titles in softball. I would rather see some mid majors or even some middle of the conference teams make it than say the last 3 teams in the SEC. I mean the team that finishes last doesn't even make the SEC tournament, why should they make the national tournament? 
Lovepurplelivegold

Registered:
Posts: 382
Reply with quote  #10 
The thing about the teams at the bottom of the SEC is that they aren’t equal to bottom dwellers of other conferences. If you had a tournament with A&M against other conference dwellers such as Rutgers, Kansas, Utah, Pitt, I think A&M beat all those teams easily. Are there some mid majors that might make some noise? Yes. SHSU surprised the hell out of me in the Texas Regional. Texas was almost the first team knocked out.

But I take it like this. It should be a year to year thing. The SEC shouldn’t get every team in every year. If the bottom teams have more quality wins, they should get in no matter where they stand in conference. For example, a 20-10 team with no top 25 wins Vs. a 16-14 team with 5 top 25 wins. I think the 16-14 team should get in.
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 18,775
Reply with quote  #11 
I guess I'm just more "bothered" by the inclusion of teams above the 150+ ranking (in whatever ranking system you want to use).  I just don't like the conference qualifiers, and that's probably a pretty unpopular opinion.  Put the 64 best teams in there.  If you want to talk about unfair, I'd argue that the team sitting at #55 (again in whatever ranking you want to use) has to sit home with their talent while the team with a 100+ ranking gets to continue playing in the post-season.
lovsofbal

Registered:
Posts: 2,301
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot
I guess I'm just more "bothered" by the inclusion of teams above the 150+ ranking (in whatever ranking system you want to use).  I just don't like the conference qualifiers, and that's probably a pretty unpopular opinion.  Put the 64 best teams in there.  If you want to talk about unfair, I'd argue that the team sitting at #55 (again in whatever ranking you want to use) has to sit home with their talent while the team with a 100+ ranking gets to continue playing in the post-season.


I agree. 
CajunAmos

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovepurplelivegold
The thing about the teams at the bottom of the SEC is that they aren’t equal to bottom dwellers of other conferences. If you had a tournament with A&M against other conference dwellers such as Rutgers, Kansas, Utah, Pitt, I think A&M beat all those teams easily. Are there some mid majors that might make some noise? Yes. SHSU surprised the hell out of me in the Texas Regional. Texas was almost the first team knocked out.

But I take it like this. It should be a year to year thing. The SEC shouldn’t get every team in every year. If the bottom teams have more quality wins, they should get in no matter where they stand in conference. For example, a 20-10 team with no top 25 wins Vs. a 16-14 team with 5 top 25 wins. I think the 16-14 team should get in.


I think the issue is not SEC bottom dwellers versus those in other conferences but against top 2-3 of others. The issue is those teams have minimal chance to schedule T25 teams. If I were an SEC team I could see scheduling teams who'll have a good record within their conferences but realistically have no shot of an upset and rely on my conference record to make the NCAA"s. I understand it, but when you then say to those teams "you don't play anyone" while refusing to play them it's somewhat hypocritical.
Emerald44

Registered:
Posts: 232
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunAmos


I think the issue is not SEC bottom dwellers versus those in other conferences but against top 2-3 of others. The issue is those teams have minimal chance to schedule T25 teams. If I were an SEC team I could see scheduling teams who'll have a good record within their conferences but realistically have no shot of an upset and rely on my conference record to make the NCAA"s. I understand it, but when you then say to those teams "you don't play anyone" while refusing to play them it's somewhat hypocritical.


Well said. That, coupled with the early spring tournaments, puts a thumb on the scale of P5 teams. Does anyone actually know how matchups are determined in the ever expanding big early spring tourneys like the ESPN in FL. & Nutter? I realize they cannot play conference foes, but one cannot ignore they are looking to sell tickets and TV ads!
RPI_Guy

Registered:
Posts: 67
Reply with quote  #15 
The sentiment on here seems to suggest that the SEC has always got all of its teams into the NCAA Tournament and that they always will get them into the NCAA Tournament. That is the case for the last 3 years, but in the past they have always had at least 2-3 less than stellar teams each year.

As far as the future goes there is no way to tell the accuracy of the statement that all SEC teams have to do is finish above .500 and they are in the NCAA Tournament.


One of the things that people conveniently seem to overlook is how well the SEC teams perform versus various RPI groups. There is truth to the fact that the SEC teams have many more opportunities to get RPI Top 25 wins due to playing other Top 25 RPI teams in their conference during SEC play. That is due largely to how well they perform versus teams ranked 26-297 in RPI.

In the past 3 seasons (the 3 they got all 13 teams into the NCAA Tournament) they have a combined record of 1169-182 (.865 Win %) versus RPI 26-297 teams and a combined 871-61 (.935) record versus RPI 51-297 teams.

Compare that to the Big 10 conference during that same 3 year stretch. The Big 10 has a combined record of 1174-742-1 (.613 win %) versus RPI 26-297 teams and a combined record of 992-500-1 (.665) versus RPI 51-297 teams.

Maybe just as impressive is the BOTTOM 6 RPI teams in the SEC have a combined record of 500-108 (.822) versus RPI 26-297 and a combined record of 409-41 (.909) versus RPI 51-297 teams. The TOP 7 RPI teams in the Big 10 have a combined record of 744-210 (.780) versus RPI 26-297 and a combined record of 602-126 (.827) versus RPi 51-297.

In addition the entire SEC has only lost 15 games to RPI 101-297 teams in the past 3 years, while the TOP 7 Big 10 teams alone have lost 18 games to RPI 101-297 teams in the past 3 years.

The truth of the matter is that everyone likes to complain about a perceived unfair advantage toward the SEC. However the fact of the matter is that what really is happening is that SEC teams have fared extremely well against teams outside the Top 25 in RPI, hardly losing games outside that realm. This is the reason their RPI ranks tend to sit in the Top 25 and the reason they have had all of their teams in the NCAA Tournament the last 3 seasons.

If as was said earlier that coaching in the SEC was such an easy proposition than maybe the coaches outside the SEC (and Pac 12), where it is so much harder to coach, need to win more games versus non Top 25 RPI teams.
southpaw

Registered:
Posts: 168
Reply with quote  #16 
Can't say I knew that about the SEC, pretty interesting. Still not so sure the 2018 Missouri or 2019 Texas A&M teams should have got bids.
CowboyJOX

Registered:
Posts: 172
Reply with quote  #17 
Would have been kind of funny for them to host the selection show at Texas A&M's stadium and they don't even make the tournament
lurker123

Registered:
Posts: 257
Reply with quote  #18 
I agree with the OP on this subject.

I probably have a more ideal vision in my opinion. Teams should have to finish with a .500 or better conference record if they want to make the NCAA Tournament. AND You must have 8 teams or more in conference to receive an automatic bid. Otherwise earn your way into the tournament.

The old timers will point to Cal in the early 2000s as reason to allow a sub-500 team in the tournament but the game is wayyyyy different now then back then.

Some of you are saying participation trophy by letting other teams in. At the end of the Texas A&M or Mizzou got a participation trophy. They were never going to win the World Series. This argument might as well change to only invite the top 8 teams to OKC and do away with the rest of the tournament.

At the end of the day Cal in 2002 was the last school to lose more than 15 to win it all. Let's not give anyone with more than 15 losses a their participation trophies.
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 18,775
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurker123
Teams should have to finish with a .500 or better conference record if they want to make the NCAA Tournament.


This notion irks me to no extent. Not all conferences are equal. So asking App State to go .500 in the Sun Belt to make them “qualified” for the tournament is much different then asking Stanford to go .500 in the P12 to be “qualified.” We all know which of those two teams is more deserving of a chance at the postseason, but because of the weird conference rule one would be eliminated. Conferences are nothing more than an assemblies of teams to generate money and has nothing to do with a level playing field.
lurker123

Registered:
Posts: 257
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot


This notion irks me to no extent. Not all conferences are equal. So asking App State to go .500 in the Sun Belt to make them “qualified” for the tournament is much different then asking Stanford to go .500 in the P12 to be “qualified.” We all know which of those two teams is more deserving of a chance at the postseason, but because of the weird conference rule one would be eliminated. Conferences are nothing more than an assemblies of teams to generate money and has nothing to do with a level playing field.



An App State team that is .500 in conference has no shot to make the tournament now or in my scenario. What you are preventing right now is a team that did poorly in conference from getting to postseason play and giving the team in another conference that finished above .500 a slot to play in the postseason whether that comes from a P5 or Mid-Major.
nothingheretosee

Registered:
Posts: 31
Reply with quote  #21 
I agree with jayrot.  Let's look at the Pac 12 - You are virtually saying let's take UCLA, Washington and Arizona (who could potentially go undefeated other than playing each other).  Then let's potentially take NO ONE ELSE.

That dog doesn't hunt - in RPI OR in the real world!
lurker123

Registered:
Posts: 257
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nothingheretosee
I agree with jayrot.  Let's look at the Pac 12 - You are virtually saying let's take UCLA, Washington and Arizona (who could potentially go undefeated other than playing each other).  Then let's potentially take NO ONE ELSE.

That dog doesn't hunt - in RPI OR in the real world!


You're almost always going to have 4 teams over .500. 

If you can't have a winning record (in general and in conference) why in the world would you deserve to be in a Championship Playoff? You lost your chance there. Especially in a conference like the Pac where everyone plays everyone.
RPI_Guy

Registered:
Posts: 67
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurker123


You're almost always going to have 4 teams over .500. 

If you can't have a winning record (in general and in conference) why in the world would you deserve to be in a Championship Playoff? You lost your chance there. Especially in a conference like the Pac where everyone plays everyone.


Does it just grind your gears that there is absolutely no consideration for that by the Selection Committee?

Good to know that they aren't just biased toward the SEC and Pac 12 when it comes to this concept.

Boise State was the #35 RPI team this past season. They were 1 of 2 bids for the Mountain West Conference. They were an At-Large Selection and they played 12-12 in conference play.

The bias is not a bias for the conference, but is a bias for their RPI and their overall body of work.
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 18,775
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurker123



An App State team that is .500 in conference has no shot to make the tournament now or in my scenario. What you are preventing right now is a team that did poorly in conference from getting to postseason play and giving the team in another conference that finished above .500 a slot to play in the postseason whether that comes from a P5 or Mid-Major.


Well based on your original requirements, the only qualifications necessary was a .500 conference record and an 8+ team conference.  App State classifies for that.

What I'm preventing is a team in a sub-par conference getting in just because they had a good conference record.  Put the 64 best teams in regardless of how their conference season played out.  Based on your assessment, Alabama State or Alabama A&M would deserve a spot in the NCAA tournament more than Oregon despite the fact we all know Oregon would beat both teams.  Oregon didn't have a .500 conference record, but Alabama State and Alabama A&M did.  So if you were putting a true "tournament of the best 64 teams" which of those 3 would be considered the "best" team.
lurker123

Registered:
Posts: 257
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPI_Guy


Does it just grind your gears that there is absolutely no consideration for that by the Selection Committee?

Good to know that they aren't just biased toward the SEC and Pac 12 when it comes to this concept.

Boise State was the #35 RPI team this past season. They were 1 of 2 bids for the Mountain West Conference. They were an At-Large Selection and they played 12-12 in conference play.

The bias is not a bias for the conference, but is a bias for their RPI and their overall body of work.


.500 record in conference play would still allow Boise to get a bid in my scenario.

I'd say regardless of their RPI they should be expected to finish .500 or better in conference play.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot


Well based on your original requirements, the only qualifications necessary was a .500 conference record and an 8+ team conference.  App State classifies for that.

What I'm preventing is a team in a sub-par conference getting in just because they had a good conference record.  Put the 64 best teams in regardless of how their conference season played out.  Based on your assessment, Alabama State or Alabama A&M would deserve a spot in the NCAA tournament more than Oregon despite the fact we all know Oregon would beat both teams.  Oregon didn't have a .500 conference record, but Alabama State and Alabama A&M did.  So if you were putting a true "tournament of the best 64 teams" which of those 3 would be considered the "best" team.


This has to be the worst argument ever made. Right now in the selection process any team over .500 is eligible for selection in the Tournament. Being eligible for selection and being selected are two completely different things. There is no way an Alabama A&M is making the tournament in my scenario unless they have a strong RPI and resume.

In my scenario you are giving basically the final few slots in the tournament that are going to a LOSING record in conference team to a team that is on the bubble but actually had a WINNING Record in conference play. So UNLV, San Jose State, Liberty and some other teams in the 40-60 RPI range could have made the tournament this past year instead.
RPI_Guy

Registered:
Posts: 67
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurker123


.500 record in conference play would still allow Boise to get a bid in my scenario.

I'd say regardless of their RPI they should be expected to finish .500 or better in conference play.




This has to be the worst argument ever made. Right now in the selection process any team over .500 is eligible for selection in the Tournament. Being eligible for selection and being selected are two completely different things. There is no way an Alabama A&M is making the tournament in my scenario unless they have a strong RPI and resume.

In my scenario you are giving basically the final few slots in the tournament that are going to a LOSING record in conference team to a team that is on the bubble but actually had a WINNING Record in conference play. So UNLV, San Jose State, Liberty and some other teams in the 40-60 RPI range could have made the tournament this past year instead.


Since you are such a fan of logic, Let's play a little hypothetical game.

This is probably not going to happen, but is possible.

Let's say there is a conference of 8 teams, heck lets just say it is the SWAC (could be any conference so let's just say them). The entire 8 teams in the conference play the 8 toughest non-conference strengths of schedule in the country and all go 35-0 in their non-conference games. Then they play their SWAC schedule of 21 games. Since the conference is so competitive they beat up on each other. The final standings in the conference are this:

Team A     49-7 (14-7 in SWAC)
Team B     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team C     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team D     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team E     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team F     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team G     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team H     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)

In this possible scenario (although not likely) all 8 teams would all enter selection Sunday with Top 12-15 RPIs. However, only 1 team would be eligible to play in the NCAA Tournament. In other words the selection committee would be forced to leave out 7 of the top 10/12/15 teams in the country in order to take maybe the 45-52nd best RPI team in the country.

I think if you can honestly say that in this scenario (which is possible, although not likely) that you would still leave out those 7 teams then go ahead and advocate for your .500 conference winning percentage requirement. If you say, well in that scenario I think the .500 conference winning percentage requirement is not good thing, then the logic you are using is illogical.

lurker123

Registered:
Posts: 257
Reply with quote  #27 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPI_Guy


Since you are such a fan of logic, Let's play a little hypothetical game.

This is probably not going to happen, but is possible.

Let's say there is a conference of 8 teams, heck lets just say it is the SWAC (could be any conference so let's just say them). The entire 8 teams in the conference play the 8 toughest non-conference strengths of schedule in the country and all go 35-0 in their non-conference games. Then they play their SWAC schedule of 21 games. Since the conference is so competitive they beat up on each other. The final standings in the conference are this:

Team A     49-7 (14-7 in SWAC)
Team B     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team C     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team D     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team E     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team F     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team G     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)
Team H     45-11 (10-11 in SWAC)

In this possible scenario (although not likely) all 8 teams would all enter selection Sunday with Top 12-15 RPIs. However, only 1 team would be eligible to play in the NCAA Tournament. In other words the selection committee would be forced to leave out 7 of the top 10/12/15 teams in the country in order to take maybe the 45-52nd best RPI team in the country.

I think if you can honestly say that in this scenario (which is possible, although not likely) that you would still leave out those 7 teams then go ahead and advocate for your .500 conference winning percentage requirement. If you say, well in that scenario I think the .500 conference winning percentage requirement is not good thing, then the logic you are using is illogical.



Is your scenario even possible for the conference results? I don't think it is mathematically but also don't have the time or energy to check.

Either way I still say all the sub-.500 teams are out from an at-large bid. Play winning softball. One of those sub-.500 teams could win the conference tournament and autobid in your scenario too since they are all so evenly matched.

In your hypothetical they played the best teams in the country and couldn't hack it. Only one survived for an at-large and they would be the odds on favorite to win the World Series.

Losing should matter. Right now it doesn't really for these teams under .500 in conference.

scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 2,494
Reply with quote  #28 
I'd prefer for every SEC team to make the tourney – every year. [wink]
RPI_Guy

Registered:
Posts: 67
Reply with quote  #29 
It is possible, since you don't have the time and energy to add those records together to see if it is possible I will do it for you.

Wins: 14+10+10+10+10+10+10+10 = 84 wins
Losses: 7+11+11+11+11+11+11+11 = 84 wins

So in 84 conference games, a conference team won 84 of those games and a conference team lost 84 of those games.


"Play winning softball" Since when is 45-11 not winning softball? So you are saying that since a team played 10-11 against Top 15 teams in conference play and finished with a .476 conference winning percentage they don't get a shot to play for a National Championship?

Good thing the 2017 Oklahoma Sooners didn't get dinged for having a below .500 record (they were 3-5 versus RPI 1-15 on Selection Sunday in 2017) versus RPI 1-15 teams on Selection Sunday in 2017 like these 7 hypothetical teams are. If they had been left out of the NCAA Tournament that year for not "Playing winning softball" they would not have their 4th National Title.

I am guessing this additional information won't change your mind on this, just wanted you to know with your view on this what is possible to happen.
southpaw

Registered:
Posts: 168
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurker123

Losing should matter. Right now it doesn't really for these teams under .500 in conference.



Losing (in 40% of your schedule) shouldn't matter more than having an overall winning record against a really strong schedule, gaining a high RPI, and having quality wins.

If losing (in 40% of your schedule) mattered more than the latter things it will trump all of those things in many cases.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.