Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 14     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 715
Reply with quote  #151 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LandLottery
Last year, everyone seemed to think the same thing.  Of course, Oklahoma went to Auburn and won two to get to the CWS.

But, Baylor also went to Arizona and won twice to make it into the CWS.  Unfortunately, they had to run into OU in the first round.  I would have loved to see them get a shot at Florida or Oregon in the first game.

Then, there was also Oklahoma State which gave Florida all it wanted in Florida in the Super-regionals.

Was the Big Twelve (or seven) all that weak?


I've made all those points in previous threads, LL.

But 3leftturns referred to my post as a "circle jerk." So I'm not sure if he agreed or disagreed.
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 715
Reply with quote  #152 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot


Right!

I think beating OU with power worked just fine in 2012 and 2015.  Congrats on your titles, well deserved.


I'll bet if you go back to 2006 or beyond, you might locate a couple more OU losses.

And, yes, they were. Thank you.
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,417
Reply with quote  #153 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrybe


I'll bet if you go back to 2006 or beyond, you might locate a couple more OU losses.

And, yes, they were. Thank you.


Basically anytime between 2001 and 2011.  Plenty of losses to pick from during that time.
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 715
Reply with quote  #154 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot


Basically anytime between 2001 and 2011.  Plenty of losses to pick from during that time.


That's why I live in the present and love Post 9-11 times so much.  [wink]
LandLottery

Registered:
Posts: 132
Reply with quote  #155 
There was no Paige Parker.  Then, there was no Paige Parker and Paige Lowary.   Then, there was no Paige Parker, Paige Lowary, Parker Conrad, Mariah Lopez, and Nicole Mendes.  It gets tough when they can rest the top two and still put a very good pitcher on the mound, one that beat South Carolina, something that Tennessee couldn't do.

I will admit to some very good fortune.  It was quite remarkable a couple of years ago to have a freshman class of Sydney Romero, Shay Knighten, Fale Aviu, and Caleigh Clifton.  You just stabilized your infield for four years with a great defensive third baseman and an athletic second baseman.  You don't always get four stars in one class, two of whom really weren't expected to be that good.
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #156 
Back to the top 16 predictions...

#1 WA vs #16 Texas A&M
#2 FL vs #15 MSST
#3 GA vs #14 AUB
#4 OR vs #13 Baylor
#5 UCLA vs #12 AZ
#6 OK vs #11 LSU
#7 ASU vs #10 TN
#8 SC vs #9 FSU

WA is #1 in rpi and now has the best record against the top 25 rpi (9-2/.818). OR has 5 losses (7-4 against top 25 rpi) but has the #2 rpi and #2 SOS. OK has the 2nd best record against the top 25 rpi (4-1) but is sitting at #9 in the rpi and #39 SOS. 
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 14,051
Reply with quote  #157 
Baylor praying in the ocean that you are not correct. They have to be totally sick of Oregon by now
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 14,051
Reply with quote  #158 

#1 WA vs #16 Texas A&M
#2 FL vs #15 MSST
#3 OR vs #14 LSU
#4 UCLA vs #13 Baylor
#5 GA vs #12 AUB
#6 OK vs #11 ARIZ
#7 ASU vs #10 TN
#8 FSU vs #9 SC
Trying to figure out what 17+ teams could possibly sneak into this top 16... It's hard

Would LBState really have a shot?
Maybe Arkansas with the Haff kid, or Alabama if Osorio comes back strong

cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #159 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns

#1 WA vs #16 Texas A&M
#2 FL vs #15 MSST
#3 OR vs #14 LSU
#4 UCLA vs #13 Baylor
#5 GA vs #12 AUB
#6 OK vs #11 ARIZ
#7 ASU vs #10 TN
#8 FSU vs #9 SC
Trying to figure out what 17+ teams could possibly sneak into this top 16... It's hard

Would LBState really have a shot?
Maybe Arkansas with the Haff kid, or Alabama if Osorio comes back strong



I think LBS may not have a shot. They are at #18 in the rpi but only #43 SOS with projected SOS dropping to #78. It would take multiple teams faltering considerably (unless the committee decides they are the "Cinderella", then who knows).  

AL definitely has a shot. They are #20 in the rpi and #32 in SOS, and only 2-6 against the rpi top 25. But they have a pretty tough schedule coming up and haven't had any "bad" losses. If they pick it up with Osorio back, they could get in.

OSU is at #17 rpi, #3 SOS but they have 12 losses. If they went on a run (which seems unlikely) they have a chance.

Arkansas, at #25 rpi, #64 SOS and 2-4 against top 25 rpi, but only 6 losses total. They're projected SOS (based on remaining games and current W/L) is 22. With some key wins they might have a chance. 

ULL is at 19 in the rpi, 24 SOS (29 projected). They have 2 bad losses to Troy and Coastal Carolina, 2-4 against top 25 rpi and 20-7 overall. They are the other possible "Cinderella". Games at Texas State and FSU should be interesting to their case. They have a chance if they do well in those games.

It will be tough to sneak in is my guess. I think only AL has a decent shot.
lovsofbal

Registered:
Posts: 1,720
Reply with quote  #160 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjs4585


I think LBS may not have a shot. They are at #18 in the rpi but only #43 SOS with projected SOS dropping to #78. It would take multiple teams faltering considerably (unless the committee decides they are the "Cinderella", then who knows).  

AL definitely has a shot. They are #20 in the rpi and #32 in SOS, and only 2-6 against the rpi top 25. But they have a pretty tough schedule coming up and haven't had any "bad" losses. If they pick it up with Osorio back, they could get in.

OSU is at #17 rpi, #3 SOS but they have 12 losses. If they went on a run (which seems unlikely) they have a chance.

Arkansas, at #25 rpi, #64 SOS and 2-4 against top 25 rpi, but only 6 losses total. They're projected SOS (based on remaining games and current W/L) is 22. With some key wins they might have a chance. 

ULL is at 19 in the rpi, 24 SOS (29 projected). They have 2 bad losses to Troy and Coastal Carolina, 2-4 against top 25 rpi and 20-7 overall. They are the other possible "Cinderella". Games at Texas State and FSU should be interesting to their case. They have a chance if they do well in those games.

It will be tough to sneak in is my guess. I think only AL has a decent shot.


anyone outside the P5 will see their RPI's drop no matter how good they are. One reason I don't like RPI.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 14,051
Reply with quote  #161 
Assuming a no-loss or one-loss traipse through conference play, that's where pre-conference performance against the P5s comes in
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,417
Reply with quote  #162 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
Baylor praying in the ocean that you are not correct. They have to be totally sick of Oregon by now


I'm sure they'd much prefer to have that 14 slot.
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,409
Reply with quote  #163 
<< Basically anytime between 2001 and 2011.  Plenty of losses to pick from during that time. >> (jayrot)


You chose to leave out the 2000 season when they won it all with a 66-8 record (no losses at the WCWS)... and we all understand why.
But you seem to forget that Oklahoma also went to the WCWS the next four years as well. 
They had a run of FIVE consecutive seasons in the WCWS from 2000 through 2004.

Guess how many other teams in the country did that back then..?
Only two other teams made it into those five WCWS... UCLA and California.
Arizona only managed to get into it four of the five.
Michigan and Washington made it into three.
Stanford, Florida State and Alabama made it into two.
And nobody else made it in more than once.

So when you list 2001 through 2011... as bad times for Oklahoma - you need to rethink that.
Beside that 4 year run to the WCWS of 2001-04...  they also were back in the WCWS in 2011.

So that leaves just the period of 2005-2010... if you're looking to find a better stretch to call out Oklahoma as being down.

And... during that six year period - they lost in the series which would have put them into the WCWS four other times. 

There have been only two times that the Sooners lost early in the post season since the turn of the century.
In 2006, after beating two lesser opponents - they lost two games to the defending champions (Michigan) 0-1 and 2-5. They were 2-2 in that post season.
In 2009, they only went 1-2 in the post season. They lost to North Dakota State in the first round 0-1. They beat Arkansas 21-2. Then they lost to Tulsa 3-5.
Boy, that sounds very familiar... to something that almost happened last season.

Every other time (besides 2006 and 2009) they have either been in the WCWS... 
or have lost in the series that would have gotten them into it. 

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

Here is how I will wrap this post up.
In the time period you chose (2001-2011) Oklahoma was in the WCWS five times
And they missed being in it because they lost in the series before it four other times

I'd bet you would be THRILLED for your team to have a stretch like that (5 trips to the WCWS and four other narrow misses) in eleven years.

And that is the period that you chose to use as a put down of the Oklahoma team.

I guess when the team has been to six of the last seven WCWS...
and been in the finals four times... and won it all three times... 
that's the best you can do.


HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,409
Reply with quote  #164 
<< Basically anytime between 2001 and 2011.  Plenty of losses to pick from during that time. >> (jayrot)


Btw... their W-L record was 514-168 (.754) over that time period. 

Clearly not up to their recent level... 
but certainly better than the vast majority of teams.

There are very few teams that wouldn't LOVE to have the record that Oklahoma had from 2001-2011...
including all those trips to the WCWS (five times) - and those near misses (four times).
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 715
Reply with quote  #165 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
<< Basically anytime between 2001 and 2011.  Plenty of losses to pick from during that time. >> (jayrot)


Btw... their W-L record was 514-168 (.754) over that time period. 

Clearly not up to their recent level... 
but certainly better than the vast majority of teams.

There are very few teams that wouldn't LOVE to have the record that Oklahoma had from 2001-2011...
including all those trips to the WCWS (five times) - and those near misses (four times).


jayrot asked me to send along his apologies to you, Henry. He also said something like, "Wow, I guess I just didn't realize how dominant that OU program has been throughout the 2000s."  LOL
1janiedough

Registered:
Posts: 2,871
Reply with quote  #166 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
<< Basically anytime between 2001 and 2011.  Plenty of losses to pick from during that time. >> (jayrot)


You chose to leave out the 2000 season when they won it all with a 66-8 record (no losses at the WCWS)... and we all understand why.
But you seem to forget that Oklahoma also went to the WCWS the next four years as well. 
They had a run of FIVE consecutive seasons in the WCWS from 2000 through 2004.

Guess how many other teams in the country did that back then..?
Only two other teams made it into those five WCWS... UCLA and California.
Arizona only managed to get into it four of the five.
Michigan and Washington made it into three.
Stanford, Florida State and Alabama made it into two.
And nobody else made it in more than once.

So when you list 2001 through 2011... as bad times for Oklahoma - you need to rethink that.
Beside that 4 year run to the WCWS of 2001-04...  they also were back in the WCWS in 2011.

So that leaves just the period of 2005-2010... if you're looking to find a better stretch to call out Oklahoma as being down.

And... during that six year period - they lost in the series which would have put them into the WCWS four other times. 

There have been only two times that the Sooners lost early in the post season since the turn of the century.
In 2006, after beating two lesser opponents - they lost two games to the defending champions (Michigan) 0-1 and 2-5. They were 2-2 in that post season.
In 2009, they only went 1-2 in the post season. They lost to North Dakota State in the first round 0-1. They beat Arkansas 21-2. Then they lost to Tulsa 3-5.
Boy, that sounds very familiar... to something that almost happened last season.

Every other time (besides 2006 and 2009) they have either been in the WCWS... 
or have lost in the series that would have gotten them into it. 

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

Here is how I will wrap this post up.
In the time period you chose (2001-2011) Oklahoma was in the WCWS five times
And they missed being in it because they lost in the series before it four other times

I'd bet you would be THRILLED for your team to have a stretch like that (5 trips to the WCWS and four other narrow misses) in eleven years.

And that is the period that you chose to use as a put down of the Oklahoma team.

I guess when the team has been to six of the last seven WCWS...
and been in the finals four times... and won it all three times... 
that's the best you can do.





Good lord.
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #167 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovsofbal


anyone outside the P5 will see their RPI's drop no matter how good they are. One reason I don't like RPI.


ULL,for instance, will likely see their rpi go up. Their projected SOS decreases from .606 to .605 but if they win the games they should, their wp will increase from .741 to above .800.

Teams prove they are good by frequently beating teams that win frequently. That's true regardless of conference and is one of the foundational principles of the rpi and SOS.

There certainly are issues with this (one being teams that win a lot of games are not equal (which is one of the uses of OOWP)), but it does provide an objective take on how good teams have proven themselves to be.

So many of the awards and other things in softball are largely subjective, or worse yet "pseudo-objective" where stats are used without taking into account strength of competition. I'm very happy the selection process isn't like that.
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,409
Reply with quote  #168 
<< So many of the awards and other things in softball are largely subjective, or worse yet "pseudo-objective" where stats are used without taking into account strength of competition. I'm very happy the selection process isn't like that. >> (cjs4585)


I understand the point of your statement above - and agree for the most part.

But then the "selection process" screws up so horribly in regard to Minnesota last season... 
that the overpowering stench from just that one decision poisons almost all the rest of their "validity".
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 14,051
Reply with quote  #169 
BS...Minnesota played no one and beat no one.

Definitely deserving of a 17+ ranking

The idiotic 'early reveal' notwithstanding, Minnesota of last year was precisely a case of RPI doing its job over poll lemmings
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,409
Reply with quote  #170 
<< BS...Minnesota played no one and beat no one.
Definitely deserving of a 17+ ranking
The idiotic 'early reveal' notwithstanding, Minnesota of last year was precisely a case of RPI doing its job over poll lemmings. >> (3LT)


Wow, 3LT... You wrote these words just the other day (in post #131):

"I do not get the disconnect of the committee KNOWING they had publicized Minnesota as a seven seed on May 7 or whatever and then dropping them 10 slots a week later

I didn't think they should host on overall merits of only four top 25 games played, but once that reveal had them 7, the much WORSE transgression was dropping them to 17 for zero reason." - 3LT

That caused an overpowering odious stench... which made the "selection process" look terrible. You have said as much yourself.


HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,409
Reply with quote  #171 
<< Definitely deserving of a 17+ ranking.
The idiotic 'early reveal' notwithstanding, Minnesota of last year was precisely a case of RPI doing its job over poll lemmings. >> (3LT)

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

<<  A week before the selections, the committee told us they had MN at number 7 (could have been 8, can't remember).  Final RPI had them at 11. >> (midwestfp)

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

Really... "Minnesota of last year was precisely a case of RPI doing its job over poll lemmings"..?
RPI had them at ELEVEN!

Eleven ain't seventeen!
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #172 
Loop
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
<< So many of the awards and other things in softball are largely subjective, or worse yet "pseudo-objective" where stats are used without taking into account strength of competition. I'm very happy the selection process isn't like that. >> (cjs4585)


I understand the point of your statement above - and agree for the most part.

But then the "selection process" screws up so horribly in regard to Minnesota last season... 
that the overpowering stench from just that one decision poisons almost all the rest of their "validity".


I had them as the 16 and AL out but I totally respected the committee when they basically made the statement if you want to host you better play a reasonably tough schedule. MN did not. They had the #111 SOS, and only played 4 top 25 rpi teams, losing 2, 1 by run rule. I think the committee made a good choice actually slightly overruling rpi (which was 11 if I remember correctly).
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 715
Reply with quote  #173 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1janiedough



Good lord.


Yes, my child?
RahOKU

Registered:
Posts: 1,430
Reply with quote  #174 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1janiedough



Good lord.


😂

__________________
"We Americans have good teeth and don't eat spotted dick." -- Columnist Kurt Schlichter
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 14,051
Reply with quote  #175 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
<< BS...Minnesota played no one and beat no one.
Definitely deserving of a 17+ ranking
The idiotic 'early reveal' notwithstanding, Minnesota of last year was precisely a case of RPI doing its job over poll lemmings. >> (3LT)


Wow, 3LT... You wrote these words just the other day (in post #131):

"I do not get the disconnect of the committee KNOWING they had publicized Minnesota as a seven seed on May 7 or whatever and then dropping them 10 slots a week later

I didn't think they should host on overall merits of only four top 25 games played, but once that reveal had them 7, the much WORSE transgression was dropping them to 17 for zero reason." - 3LT

That caused an overpowering odious stench... which made the "selection process" look terrible. You have said as much yourself.


I was reacting to what I took as you saying that you believed they deserved to host based on the merits.

If you mean solely that they got screwed because of the May 7 reveal.... then, yes, embarrassing

Should never have been in that reveal, yet there they were

3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 14,051
Reply with quote  #176 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjs4585
Loop I had them as the 16 and AL out but I totally respected the committee when they basically made the statement if you want to host you better play a reasonably tough schedule. MN did not. They had the #111 SOS, and only played 4 top 25 rpi teams, losing 2, 1 by run rule. I think the committee made a good choice actually slightly overruling rpi (which was 11 if I remember correctly).
Yes
RahOKU

Registered:
Posts: 1,430
Reply with quote  #177 
Are they doing the "reveal" again? Maybe renaming it the "head fake"?
__________________
"We Americans have good teeth and don't eat spotted dick." -- Columnist Kurt Schlichter
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 14,051
Reply with quote  #178 
Seriously, what a crock of crapola
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 14,051
Reply with quote  #179 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
<< Definitely deserving of a 17+ ranking.
The idiotic 'early reveal' notwithstanding, Minnesota of last year was precisely a case of RPI doing its job over poll lemmings. >> (3LT)

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

<<  A week before the selections, the committee told us they had MN at number 7 (could have been 8, can't remember).  Final RPI had them at 11. >> (midwestfp)

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

Really... "Minnesota of last year was precisely a case of RPI doing its job over poll lemmings"..?
RPI had them at ELEVEN!

Eleven ain't seventeen!
Polls had Gophers 2. RPI had them 11. Committee, as they have done when they see a team who gamed the math despite not playing the T25 load, dropped them those six spots.

RPI did its job in having them as a non-supers host.

I was shocked they got dropped six spots. I thought maybe two or three, just because I didn't think the committee would have the balls....but they did.

And, to me, in a vacuum (no reveal in play), it was the right call
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,945
Reply with quote  #180 
While RPI might not be "subjective" (it's a simple algorithm), that doesn't mean its results aren't biased, or that it can't be gamed. That's why the Committee, while still relying heavily on RPI to fill the field, is leaning much more heavily on other factors (significant wins, especially) when setting the top 16 seeds.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.