Ultimate College Softball
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #1 

Over the last 3 seasons, Baylor's seed by the Committee as compared to their RPI is below:


             RPI            Seed

2016:      13       Not seeded, sent to #5 Oregon regional
2017:      10              15
2018:      15       Not seeded

The current SR format with top 8 national seeds and 16 seeds that host regionals began in 2005. From 2005 to 2015, Baylor never received a seed worse than their RPI. In fact, in 2007 Baylor's RPI was #13 and they got the 8 seed. I think this is the lowest seed to ever get a top 8. 

Anyway, currently Baylor has received the worst treatment as compared to their RPI for 3 consecutive seasons. (excluding Minnesota 2017)

So here is something to at least ponder. The major scandal regarding Baylor covering up sexual assault by its football players and other athletes broke in 2015 and was proven to involve a massive cover-up. Every year the committee gets about 3 new members to replace the ones whose terms expire. But for this entire period, women make up the significant majority of committee members. Could this explain the treatment of Baylor?  To be clear, I am on the side of VICTIMS of sexual assault. But the consequences should not accrue to the softball team.  Also to be clear, I am not saying there is evidence this has impacted the way committee members vote. This is not an accusation, but it does cross my mind as a potential explanation. I am curious what others think of this possibility.
CajunAmos

Registered:
Posts: 1,163
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph

Over the last 3 seasons, Baylor's seed by the Committee as compared to their RPI is below:


             RPI            Seed

2016:      13       Not seeded, sent to #5 Oregon regional
2017:      10              15
2018:      15       Not seeded

The current SR format with top 8 national seeds and 16 seeds that host regionals began in 2005. From 2005 to 2015, Baylor never received a seed worse than their RPI. In fact, in 2007 Baylor's RPI was #13 and they got the 8 seed. I think this is the lowest seed to ever get a top 8. 

Anyway, currently Baylor has received the worst treatment as compared to their RPI for 3 consecutive seasons. 

So here is something to at least ponder. The major scandal regarding Baylor covering up sexual assault by its football players and other athletes broke in 2015 and was proven to involve a massive cover-up. Every year the committee gets about 3 new members to replace the ones whose terms expire. But for this entire period, women make up the significant majority of committee members. Could this explain the treatment of Baylor?  To be clear, I am on the side of VICTIMS of sexual assault. But the consequences should not accrue to the softball team.  Also to be clear, I am not saying there is evidence this has impacted the way committee members vote. This is not an accusation, but it does cross my mind as a potential explanation. I am curious what others think of this possibility.


It's almost as if they're being treated like a mid-major! [biggrin]
sMurph

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


It's almost as if they're being treated like a mid-major! [biggrin]



Right. The only other teams who this has happened to are Louisiana, Hofstra, UCF, and sometimes JMU (although they got treated well a couple times). 


But Baylor is not a mid-major. Hence the reason to explore if there is an underlying reason for this treatment. 
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 1,370
Reply with quote  #4 
I'm as far as one can be from being a Baylor defender, but what other explanation could there be?
Southie

Registered:
Posts: 341
Reply with quote  #5 
They get treated that way because the NCAA does not like Art Briles and Kim Mulkey.
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,790
Reply with quote  #6 
I personally like to think of it as payback for giving Canion 6 years.  (obviously joking, but I hope they aren't holding the softball team accountable for a football team.)
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,790
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph



Right. The only other teams who this has happened to are Louisiana, Hofstra, UCF, and sometimes JMU (although they got treated well a couple times). 


But Baylor is not a mid-major. Hence the reason to explore if there is an underlying reason for this treatment. 


I mean I think most of those teams (sans UCF) have been treated just fine.  I mean sure there are shifts in RPI to seeding, but nothing any worse than Minnesota last year (technically a Power 5 team) or Auburn this year.
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 5,145
Reply with quote  #8 
well I noticed that too.   I even wondered whether hosting a regional costs a school money and Baylor quietly asked to be not considered if possible.

It's sort of the flip side of UGA seemingly getting higher seedings than their RPI would predict. 

I can sort of see how it might be the Committee's way of punishing Baylor's AD, but that's not fair to the female student athletes who they're supposedly supporting, now is it? 

As to Briles and Mulkie, Briles has been gone for two years, and Mulkie, well I really don't understand that one other than she's a real firecracker.


__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
whatusmokin

Registered:
Posts: 250
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph



Right. The only other teams who this has happened to are Louisiana, Hofstra, UCF, and sometimes JMU (although they got treated well a couple times). 


But Baylor is not a mid-major. Hence the reason to explore if there is an underlying reason for this treatment. 


That did not work out too well when the committee sent Hofstra to UCLA in 2012 as a 4 seed when their RPI was in the mid 20's 😂
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot


I mean I think most of those teams (sans UCF) have been treated just fine.  I mean sure there are shifts in RPI to seeding, but nothing any worse than Minnesota last year (technically a Power 5 team) or Auburn this year.




That was kind of my point. Whether people agree with it or not, we understand the reasons that ULL, Hofstra, etc. And we know why on Minn, even if we think they way overdid it. But 3 years in a row on Baylor, a team that as a 15 seed beat Arizona as a 2 seed in a super regional just last year. 
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunninLA
well I noticed that too.   I even wondered whether hosting a regional costs a school money and Baylor quietly asked to be not considered if possible.

It's sort of the flip side of UGA seemingly getting higher seedings than their RPI would predict. 

I can sort of see how it might be the Committee's way of punishing Baylor's AD, but that's not fair to the female student athletes who they're supposedly supporting, now is it? 

As to Briles and Mulkie, Briles has been gone for two years, and Mulkie, well I really don't understand that one other than she's a real firecracker.




I saw an article last week with quotes from the Baylor coach. It was clear they want to host. I don't think they have ever declined to host due to cost. He pointed out in this interview that they were the 15 seed last year (with 10 RPI) and they beat 2 seed Arizona on the road in a Super Regional. He hoped they had proven something to the committee. Seems not. 
AustinSoftball

Registered:
Posts: 178
Reply with quote  #12 
The Baylor of this year is not the Baylor of prior years, so the fact that they were fighting against Texas for the third/fourth spot is not in their favor.  

But, if you ask anyone outside of Texas, Baylor does not carry the weight of a major university with a huge national base of alumni and a big TV draw.  In Texas, Baylor is considered up there with the big schools, but not nationally.  So when the committee has nonTexas natives, Baylor will not get the respect they think they deserve.  Is this a proper reason for a lower seed? Probably not.  Can you do anything about it.  Attract more out of state students and send them back to the other states.

Name any big state school and it will get preference over Baylor in softball.  
RahOKU

Registered:
Posts: 1,741
Reply with quote  #13 
Yeah, I think this is hard to understand. Baylor's performance last year, winning a SR on the road and reaching the WCWS, should have given somebody pause before they deviated from the RPI. I mean, RPI is supposed to be the gold standard, right? Baylor might not be as good this year as last, but they still have Gia Rodoni who is certainly capable of throwing up lots of zeros. They might surprise again.
__________________
"We Americans have good teeth and don't eat spotted dick." -- Columnist Kurt Schlichter
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 5,145
Reply with quote  #14 
the committee must be full of atheists or something.
__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinSoftball
The Baylor of this year is not the Baylor of prior years, so the fact that they were fighting against Texas for the third/fourth spot is not in their favor.  

But, if you ask anyone outside of Texas, Baylor does not carry the weight of a major university with a huge national base of alumni and a big TV draw.  In Texas, Baylor is considered up there with the big schools, but not nationally.  So when the committee has nonTexas natives, Baylor will not get the respect they think they deserve.  Is this a proper reason for a lower seed? Probably not.  Can you do anything about it.  Attract more out of state students and send them back to the other states.

Name any big state school and it will get preference over Baylor in softball.  



I'm not buying this as a reason. You don't have to be a major University with a huge national base of alums to get seeded by the softball committee. Why did Baylor always get a seed that was the same or a couple times better than their RPI up thru 2015, then suddenly in 2016, 2017 and 2018 it changed big time. ? 
BOOBEAR

Registered:
Posts: 85
Reply with quote  #16 
Baylors strength of schedule was 13. Higher than A&M or Arkansas even though they play in SEC.
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunninLA
the committee must be full of atheists or something.




Or at least they realize that Baptists don't act better than atheists, and often worse.  [idea]
1janiedough

Registered:
Posts: 3,702
Reply with quote  #18 
Look at their top 25 wins for your answer, at least for this year. They only have 3 top 25 wins and 4 is the magic number.
Devin22

Registered:
Posts: 1,298
Reply with quote  #19 
When I saw Baylor earlier in the year, the offense was struggling and appears it does not have the pop as in prior years...But they can be scrappy and a tough out...
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1janiedough
Look at their top 25 wins for your answer, at least for this year. They only have 3 top 25 wins and 4 is the magic number.



Here is some other top 25 wins info


Tennessee 17
South Carolina 17

neither got top 8 seed

#8 Arizona St - 9
#5 Florida St - 8
#4 Oklahoma - 7

So it's not just "Top 25 wins". 
1janiedough

Registered:
Posts: 3,702
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph



Here is some other top 25 wins info


Tennessee 17
South Carolina 17

neither got top 8 seed

#8 Arizona St - 9
#5 Florida St - 8
#4 Oklahoma - 7

So it's not just "Top 25 wins". 


The lack of top 25 wins. Ask 3lt.
Baylor only had 3.
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1janiedough
The lack of top 25 wins. Ask 3lt. Baylor only had 3.




I realize the fact that the haven't put a team with just 3 such wins in the top 16 before. But that is a ridiculous reliance on a single "secret rule". Missouri ended up #24 so Arizona barely got a 4th top 25 win. Oklahoma State ended up #27, so Baylor barely missed out on a 4th top 25 win. Makes no sense. 
Southie

Registered:
Posts: 341
Reply with quote  #23 
Big 12 was pretty weak this season, IMO; and, Baylor finished third behind Oklahoma State (who is not hosting).
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,153
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph




I realize the fact that the haven't put a team with just 3 such wins in the top 16 before. But that is a ridiculous reliance on a single "secret rule". Missouri ended up #24 so Arizona barely got a 4th top 25 win. Oklahoma State ended up #27, so Baylor barely missed out on a 4th top 25 win. Makes no sense. 





LCITSH

Registered:
Posts: 2,774
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southie
Big 12 was pretty weak this season, IMO; and, Baylor finished third behind Oklahoma State (who is not hosting).


Baylor tied with Oklahoma State for 2nd, lost the tiebreak because Oklahoma State swept them. Broke the "tie" by beating Oklahoma State in the conference tournament and playing for the tournament championship.

__________________
Terrell S. Hebert
Louisiana USSSA Church Coordinator
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 545
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southie
Big 12 was pretty weak this season, IMO; and, Baylor finished third behind Oklahoma State (who is not hosting).



The post was about a 3 year period. 

BlueSky

Registered:
Posts: 883
Reply with quote  #27 
 OK Baylor, just go out and win it then.

If Baylor wins it all this year, I'll have heartburn if the selection committee next year disrespects them. If not, the committee is churning some info unbeknownst to us. Can you change their process if you're not on the committee?

__________________
 
lovsofbal

Registered:
Posts: 1,952
Reply with quote  #28 
I thought hosting a regional actually made a school money. TV money.

That's what I understood when Cal Poly baseball
hosted in '14
1janiedough

Registered:
Posts: 3,702
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph




I realize the fact that the haven't put a team with just 3 such wins in the top 16 before. But that is a ridiculous reliance on a single "secret rule". Missouri ended up #24 so Arizona barely got a 4th top 25 win. Oklahoma State ended up #27, so Baylor barely missed out on a 4th top 25 win. Makes no sense. 


And Az lost their Oregon State top 25 sweep wins when the Beavs dropped out of top 25 on selection Sunday's rpi.

Had Mizzou also stayed out of top 25 rpi, the committee would have had zero problems not putting Az as hosts and sent them packing.
sportz_fanz

Registered:
Posts: 451
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph

Over the last 3 seasons, Baylor's seed by the Committee as compared to their RPI is below:


             RPI            Seed

2016:      13       Not seeded, sent to #5 Oregon regional
2017:      10              15
2018:      15       Not seeded

The current SR format with top 8 national seeds and 16 seeds that host regionals began in 2005. From 2005 to 2015, Baylor never received a seed worse than their RPI. In fact, in 2007 Baylor's RPI was #13 and they got the 8 seed. I think this is the lowest seed to ever get a top 8. 

Anyway, currently Baylor has received the worst treatment as compared to their RPI for 3 consecutive seasons. (excluding Minnesota 2017)

So here is something to at least ponder. The major scandal regarding Baylor covering up sexual assault by its football players and other athletes broke in 2015 and was proven to involve a massive cover-up. Every year the committee gets about 3 new members to replace the ones whose terms expire. But for this entire period, women make up the significant majority of committee members. Could this explain the treatment of Baylor?  To be clear, I am on the side of VICTIMS of sexual assault. But the consequences should not accrue to the softball team.  Also to be clear, I am not saying there is evidence this has impacted the way committee members vote. This is not an accusation, but it does cross my mind as a potential explanation. I am curious what others think of this possibility.


Just prove the committee wrong again and win. They bounced 2-seed Arizona last year. Do it again to TAMU (and maybe Florida). Eventually, they'll get the message.

To answer your question, my guess would be they pissed off Candrea, who has some buddies on the committee.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.