Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


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

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #61 

The other value of the Nutter and Garman?

FLOSOFTBALL is now webcasting these games, and a great game can be watched by every voter, and if you can watch them after the fact, too

CajunAmos

Registered:
Posts: 971
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
Also, Oregon kicked off a tournament at its new complex in March. Teams playing the Ducks were a combined RPI-killing .485 win percentage mixed with a brutal opponent win percentage

I'd love to see a JMU, ULL, Michigan, Minnesota there instead of that


Me too. Or TA&M, Ole Miss, Miss State, Auburn, SCar on a home/home series.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunAmos


Me too. Or TA&M, Ole Miss, Miss State, Auburn, SCar on a home/home series.
I know YOU want the home-and-homes.... but the SEC and Pac don't have to go there for their RPI juice.

If that is the team's thinking, they will have a few white-knuckle selection Sundays
AleDawg

Registered:
Posts: 401
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
I know YOU want the home-and-homes.... but the SEC and Pac don't have to go there for their RPI juice.

If that is the team's thinking, they will always be white-knuckling selection Sunday


I kind of think Tarr has done LSU and Alabama trips to get the girls ready for the heavy Southern heat. We wilted in Florida a few years ago.

__________________
"Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience."
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #65 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AleDawg


I kind of think Tarr has done LSU and Alabama trips to get the girls ready for the heavy Southern heat. We wilted in Florida a few years ago.
Absolutely. So freaking smart

Minnesota hopefully has been in Tuscaloosa since yesterday

Still remember seeing Inglesby and company in Gainesville LITERALLY looking like they had taken a shower while in uniform
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,592
Reply with quote  #66 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AleDawg


I kind of think Tarr has done LSU and Alabama trips to get the girls ready for the heavy Southern heat. We wilted in Florida a few years ago.


Washington's RPI went up 111 points after the Bama trip. That was one of the juiciest trips ever, RPI wise. April in Tuscaloosa was fairly pleasant. A bigger reason, apart from RPI, was to get the team exposure to a large and loud crowd in a big stadium, which they got.
Prowler

Registered:
Posts: 1,391
Reply with quote  #67 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCexile
As a quant researcher (among other things) I'm pretty miffed at why the selection committee bothers with RPI.  The knock on Minnesota and JMU was their SOS yet 50% of the RPI is just that; your schedule and your opponents, collectively.  If a team's schedule is 'deficient' the RPI should reflect it.  I have also coached track and field.  Loved it since parents can't question the starters.  It's all objective . . . jump higher, run faster, throw further . . . all measurable.  It seems to me the committee is substituting its 'judgement' for the supposedly objective measure of schedule quality.  It would be like adding 'style points' to T & F.  Lets see; Julie clears 17' but the judges decided Amber looked better so it awarded first place to her although she only cleared 16'6".  If you don't trust RPI then get rid of it.  The Minnesota and JMU coaches played  a schedule that, objectively measured, qualified them to host.  They should.  There is a place for a committee but only in determining location and seeding.


Except that it doesn't include everything.

I 100 percent agree that Minnesota got hosed, but there's real validity in saying Team A has X number of Top 5 and Top 25 wins and digging deeper within the numbers to see Team B doesn't.

Beating Florida or Oregon or top teams like that should have weight. Beating Ole Miss is worth more than beating St. Francis, yet St. Francis has a better record (and if you played them, that's in the portion of your RPI calculation that counts 50 pecent).

Don't tell me that Minnesota has a better SOS than Ole Miss or Washington or Alabama, because it just ain't true -- same for JMU and Louisiana. Only eight teams had more top 25 wins than Ole Miss. That should count for something.
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 4,773
Reply with quote  #68 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark46

  Having a 5-10 record against top 25 teams seems to impress the committee but a 3-2 record wouldn't.  
Yeah, that doesn't seem right to me either.   I agree with a couple of other posters that without taking winning more into account, the SOS and RPI can get pretty circular.   The committee probably does what it wants to using fuzzy human thinking, and then backtracks to paper it over, because of the illogic of the RPI and SOS as currently written..

__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 705
Reply with quote  #69 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCexile
As a quant researcher (among other things) I'm pretty miffed at why the selection committee bothers with RPI.  The knock on Minnesota and JMU was their SOS yet 50% of the RPI is just that; your schedule and your opponents, collectively.  If a team's schedule is 'deficient' the RPI should reflect it.  I have also coached track and field.  Loved it since parents can't question the starters.  It's all objective . . . jump higher, run faster, throw further . . . all measurable.  It seems to me the committee is substituting its 'judgement' for the supposedly objective measure of schedule quality.  It would be like adding 'style points' to T & F.  Lets see; Julie clears 17' but the judges decided Amber looked better so it awarded first place to her although she only cleared 16'6".  If you don't trust RPI then get rid of it.  The Minnesota and JMU coaches played  a schedule that, objectively measured, qualified them to host.  They should.  There is a place for a committee but only in determining location and seeding.


So JMU played 3 ranked teams all year: S Florida, Auburn, MZ & went 3-2. They in turn lost to CoC, VA, Hofstra & Mercer none of whom were even close to consideration for the NCAA. 

That 3-6 record, measured objectively, qualifies them to host? OK, if you say so. 

I think they actually ended up better than if they would of hosted. 
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,592
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark46
Having a 5-10 record against top 25 teams seems to impress the committee but a 3-2 record wouldn't.


The record, as such, doesn't matter. Only really "bad" losses matter. The Committee wants to encourage scheduling tough road/neutral-site games and discourage avoiding tough competition and gaming RPI by scheduling only "plums".

UW likely got dinged for being run-ruled at home by Stanford, but not for losing to BYU, Missouri, or Baylor. Oklahoma likely got dinged for those two embarrassing losses to Cal Poly.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa


The record, as such, doesn't matter. Only really "bad" losses matter. The Committee wants to encourage scheduling tough road/neutral-site games and discourage avoiding tough competition and gaming RPI by scheduling only "plums".

UW likely got dinged for being run-ruled at home by Stanford, but not for losing to BYU, Missouri, or Baylor. Oklahoma likely got dinged for those two embarrassing losses to Cal Poly.
For the second time... Washington was NOT run-ruled by Stanford.


CajunAmos

Registered:
Posts: 971
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
I know YOU want the home-and-homes.... but the SEC and Pac don't have to go there for their RPI juice.

If that is the team's thinking, they will have a few white-knuckle selection Sundays


That's exactly what I expected. Play a better schedule, but not us.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunAmos
That's exactly what I expected. Play a better schedule, but not us.
Just play a better schedule, and travel to do it
AleDawg

Registered:
Posts: 401
Reply with quote  #74 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
For the second time... Washington was NOT run-ruled by Stanford.





Also, I don't think that loss (more than any other) hurt them. It's the fact that they didn't finish ahead of UCLA in the conference standings or RPI.

And all that could have done is flip UW and UCLA seeds.

__________________
"Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience."
NCexile

Registered:
Posts: 636
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
Originally Posted by outofzone


So JMU played 3 ranked teams all year: S Florida, Auburn, MZ & went 3-2. They in turn lost to CoC, VA, Hofstra & Mercer none of whom were even close to consideration for the NCAA. 

That 3-6 record, measured objectively, qualifies them to host? OK, if you say so. 

I think they actually ended up better than if they would of hosted. 


My point is that the RPI says "yes, JMU and Minnesota should host".  That's the OBJECTIVE measure the committee considers.  Everything else is opinion. If the measure doesn't work get rid of it or create one the does work.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #76 
For the past 8 years, the committee has shown itself to be of the belief that T25 wins/games played (and, even moreso, T10/T5) have been undervalued in the RPI
eeyore

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #77 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
My point is this... Minnesota was in Fresno instead of the second week of the nutter. That made the difference this year. If you have a bad conference, you have to gun for that event, and... you can't be hung up on home and home series with the big programs. You have to travel without reciprocation if need be


In which case, the calls to increase strength of schedule aren't sincere.  The top teams only want to play you when it's convenient and the field is tilted in their favor.  Until they're ready to make a trip to Minneapolis, even if it's a midweek in April, they're just blowing smoke and enjoying a system rigged in their favor.

It's odd, isn't it, that the factor in strength of schedule that isn't use is the one that wouldn't help the SEC.  Of Minnesota's 57 games so far this year, they've played 16 at home, including zero of their games against other teams in the tournament.  That's fewer than half the number of home games Alabama played.  It's really easy to say that someone else should schedule tougher when you're not the one getting on a plane every weekend of February and March.
eeyore

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #78 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa
The record, as such, doesn't matter. Only really "bad" losses matter. The Committee wants to encourage scheduling tough road/neutral-site games and discourage avoiding tough competition and gaming RPI by scheduling only "plums".


The problem is that this badly biases the system in favor of teams that play in top conferences.  Let's take two teams that would have the same winning percentage if they played identical schedules, but one plays in the SEC and the other plays in a northern conference.  The SEC team is far more likely to generate whatever the required number of wins against top teams than the other team, because they have far more opportunities than the northern team can hope to have, even if they lose most of them.

That's compounded by the use of an arbitrary and absolute cutoff for what teams count as "top opponents," whether it's Top 10, Top 25, or whatever.  Alabama's wins against #23 South Carolina count for full value, while Minnesota's wins over #27 Illinois are worth nothing.  

It's as if the committee said, "Hey, RPI is really terrible, so why don't we come up with something that's even worse?"  Until recently, I thought the women's hockey selection process was the worst around, but at least they finally did away with the Record vs. Teams Under Consideration (i.e. teams with an RPI greater than .5) because we were finally able to hammer home to them all of the ways it's a flawed criterion, though miles better than just counting wins vs. top 25 teams.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #79 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eeyore


In which case, the calls to increase strength of schedule aren't sincere.  The top teams only want to play you when it's convenient and the field is tilted in their favor.  Until they're ready to make a trip to Minneapolis, even if it's a midweek in April, they're just blowing smoke and enjoying a system rigged in their favor.

It's odd, isn't it, that the factor in strength of schedule that isn't use is the one that wouldn't help the SEC.  Of Minnesota's 57 games so far this year, they've played 16 at home, including zero of their games against other teams in the tournament.  That's fewer than half the number of home games Alabama played.  It's really easy to say that someone else should schedule tougher when you're not the one getting on a plane every weekend of February and March.

Utah has had TWELVE home games, Washington has had 18 home games, Michigan has had 18 home games. Utah went to Tempe, Long Beach, Palm Springs and Hawaii; Washington traveled to Puerto Vallarta, San Diego, Palm Springs, Fullerton and Tuscaloosa; Michigan went to Tampa, Palm Springs, Fullerton and Lexington

AleDawg

Registered:
Posts: 401
Reply with quote  #80 
Wouldn't the obvious resolution have been to switch Illinois and Minnesota and tag Minn at the 14 and let them host? Heck it even solves a "proximity" problem as De Paul is actually within 400 miles of Minneapolis.

Who would have had a problem with Minn sliding 3 spots from their RPI and KY actually slotted behind Alabama where they should be??

__________________
"Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience."
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #81 
'switch Illinois and Minnesota'?
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #82 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AleDawg

Who would have had a problem with Minn sliding 3 spots from their RPI and KY actually slotted behind Alabama where they should be??
Who knows what the hell the thinking was that put Kentucky ahead of Bama
AleDawg

Registered:
Posts: 401
Reply with quote  #83 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
'switch Illinois and Minnesota'?


Put Illinois to the Tuscaloosa regional and have Minn host the 3 other teams (KY, De Paul and Marshal) playing in Lexington this weekend.

__________________
"Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience."
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #84 
Well....yeah...everyone is going nuts over Minnesota not hosting
ChinMusic

Registered:
Posts: 531
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AleDawg
Wouldn't the obvious resolution have been to switch Illinois and Minnesota and tag Minn at the 14 and let them host? Heck it even solves a "proximity" problem as De Paul is actually within 400 miles of Minneapolis.

Who would have had a problem with Minn sliding 3 spots from their RPI and KY actually slotted behind Alabama where they should be??


Oh to have been a fly on the wall during those committee discussions....if any.
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,177
Reply with quote  #86 
The glue, from the dead horse, is tired of being beaten by this discussion.
__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #87 
It's just that I haven't heard the Utah or Washington fans bleating about how they can't play a competitive schedule because they averaged fewer home games than Minnesota
CajunAmos

Registered:
Posts: 971
Reply with quote  #88 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
Just play a better schedule, and travel to do it


I think you're purposely obtuse. You have to agree to play. There are a number of teams WHO REFUSE to play anywhere. Based on your comment, and the current selection committee's unique interpretation of their job, I don't see it getting any easier. What's the incentive to play any top programs anywhere other than your conference games.

Create a bonus/penalty system for home/away games, correct the issues with the RPI, and make it the sole decision for the top 16 seeds.
lotsoffish

Registered:
Posts: 90
Reply with quote  #89 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunAmos


I think you're purposely obtuse. You have to agree to play. There are a number of teams WHO REFUSE to play anywhere. Based on your comment, and the current selection committee's unique interpretation of their job, I don't see it getting any easier. What's the incentive to play any top programs anywhere other than your conference games.

Create a bonus/penalty system for home/away games, correct the issues with the RPI, and make it the sole decision for the top 16 seeds.


Have to agree you make sense after I see what they did to Minnesota. Should head to head series winners be acknowledged?  Seems like a lot of teams are ranked higher than teams who beat them in a three game series.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,834
Reply with quote  #90 
Most of the top seeds' OOC hay is made at neutral sites.

Can't help that the Cajuns got tired of getting beaten up in Fullerton year after year and bailed

You can't just sit home so much and, just because you believe your program and its woodshed is some sort of mecca, expect teams to flock there
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: