Ultimate College Softball
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 5     «   Prev   2   3   4   5

Posts: 2,235
Reply with quote  #121 
<< How do you think Oklahoma at 3-1 there has them jump UCLA and their 7-3? >> (3LT)

I didn't say that Oklahoma's 3-1 would jump them ahead of UCLA.  I said that .750 is a tad better than .700.
There are people who would choose a .750 W% over a .700 W%.
And there are people who would take the 7-3 over the 3-1.
Maybe most would take 7-3 over 3-1...  but not everyone would.

But .750 is quite a bit better than Florida's .556 winning percentage.
Is 3-1 a better record vs. the top ten  than 4-5..? 
What do you think..?  How do you see it..?
Is one more win worth the four more losses..?
Not in my view.

Just based on their top ten records... Oklahoma could be seeded ahead of Florida. 

Posts: 16,598
Reply with quote  #122 

Everyone would take a team that matches the other's 3-1 against T10 teams, and then plays 6 other Top 10 games, winning 66.7 percent of them. It is REAMS more evidence of excellence against the peer group that you are trying to be seeded atop of

And, Florida?

Oklahoma gains a 2-0 when South Carolina goes T10, Florida gains a 4-0 to get to 9-4 vs. T10

When both teams are 3-1 vs. T10, the sane will take the team that is an additional 6-3 against T10

Having a .692 with 13 games played OR a .700 with 10 games played is much more telling over a .750 with only four games played


Posts: 548
Reply with quote  #123 
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
<< So for me, the close call was 2 and 3. The reason I am confident OU will be seeded 4 has nothing to do with my opinion of the 4 teams. My main reason is that over the years when I have heard the Committee or the Chair explain why Team A was seeded ahead of Team B, the thing they emphasize BY FAR more than any other is the number of wins vs the top 25. OU has 9. UCLA has 15. UF has 27. >> (sMurph)

That is quite interesting.
So it seems that the information about the UCLA losses and Florida losses (that you referenced in your post) led you to switch UCLA to #2 and Florida to #3.

But that is completely contradicted by the "number of wins vs. the top 25" information (which you say "they emphasize BY FAR more than any other")... 
where Florida is the clear "winner" 27  to  15.

What is very interesting is (1) why you are so interested and questioning of my hobby for lack of a better word of trying to predict the Committee. Why do you take it so personally? I didn't lay out my entire thoughts and methods. That would be elevating my little fun exercise to some level of importance that it doesn't have, at all.
(2) how you cherry pick the various data and comments. The part you didn't mention is when I said how remarkable it is IMO that UCLA had only 4 losses GIVEN that they played a 24 game Pac12 schedule and  several more difficult non-conf games. Florida lost 8 playing a a high quantity of top 25 teams. OU only lost 4 also but their conference slate is much different. 

My initial evaluation was of the entire body of work emphasizing the committee's criteria. Would you like for me to email you my spreadsheet? After that evaluation, it was clear that in my projection, Oregon was 1 and OU was 4 and Florida and UCLA were basically tied. So I took a re-look at those 2. 

I do every bit of that because I enjoy it and whether you believe it or not, without bias. Because who really cares what I come up with? It has no bearing on anything. The other night I was arguing over and over that Auburn was gonna host ahead of Baylor and Kentucky. I hate Auburn. I will hoot and laugh if I am wrong and they get left out. And I may be wrong about 1,2,3,and 4. 

I actually admire your passion for your team. A lot. In my opinion, the Committee's "stated" process is not very good, and they do an even worse job of carrying it out. But they are what we have so I try to guess what they will be based on what I have seen them do and say before. 


Posts: 16,598
Reply with quote  #124 
Originally Posted by sMurph

You are under the MIS-impression that anything I have posted is about how I would value some result or what "anyone" would take. I am not debating the quality of the teams. I am projecting what I think a very below average committee will do based on what I have observed them do before. 

You are not capable of objectivity regarding any debate regarding OU, and that's fine. But I'm not even taking positions that you are arguing against. I am seeing how accurately I can predict what the committee's seeds will be. If I am wrong about OU's seed, that will mean I was wrong ... about what the Committee would do. Not about the substance of OU's team or season. 

My post wasn't debating you at all

Posts: 548
Reply with quote  #125 

Here is my final projection I posted. Below it I will share which seeds I am confident about and which ones I think might be wrong  and why? And after the bracket is announced it will be obvious if I have no friggin clue (and some years that is the case), or if I did pretty good in spots and not so good in others, or if I nailed it. I assure you it's not about OU or any individual team. 

1. Oregon            16. Auburn
2. UCLA               15. Arkansas
3. Florida             14. Texas A&M
4. Oklahoma        13. Alabama
5. Arizona St        12. Arizona
6. Washington      11. Georgia
7. So Carolina      10. LSU
8. Tennessee         9. Florida

-I think 1 and 4 will be right. 2 and 3 is 50/50 
-I'm leaning to Ariz St for 5 over Wash because in the 3 biggest series, Ariz St outdid Wash in all 3, They won 2 of 3 head to head, and they won a game vs both UCLA and Oreg, whereas Wash got swept by both. However, I think the RPI is gonna have Wash 5, FSU 6, and Ariz St 7. So they very well stick with Wash at 6
-I now am leaning to them having FSU in the top 8 due to their RPI of [I think] 6. If FSU is in the top 8, they just might bump SC and not TEnn (even tho SC swept Tenn). They know the entire SC softball program and fans are tickled to death to be hosting. They've never even thought about the concept of a top 8 national seed. Leaving out SC will create the least anger. Again, that's my assessment of what the committee would be thinking. 

Posts: 16,598
Reply with quote  #126 
I think UF is 2.... we shall see

Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #127 
Top 4 in alphabetical order according to ncaa





Posts: 16,598
Reply with quote  #128 

Originally Posted by 3leftturns
My FINAL Seeding for Tomorrow:

1) Oregon
2) Florida
4) Oklahoma
5) Arizona State
6) Washington
7) South Carolina
8) FSU
9) LSU
10) Tennessee
11) Georgia
12) Alabama
13) Arizona
14) Texas A&M
15) Arkansas
16) Kentucky

I am standing on this one

Anyone disagree?....LOL

EDIT: That was an old one.... had to shuffle FSU, LSU and Tenn, with FSU hanging on for dear life at 8


Posts: 560
Reply with quote  #129 
Originally Posted by 3leftturns

I am standing on this one

Anyone disagree?....LOL

EDIT: That was an old one.... had to shuffle FSU, LSU and Tenn, with FSU hanging on for dear life at 8

I think Tennessee is top 8. No way LSU should be seeded ahead of Tennessee. I think Florida gets the short end of the Top 8 stick

I never thought 2 weeks ago we could see Bama at 12...but I can't find a reason to put anyone behind them above 13...
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.