Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
#1 Florida .69033
#2 Georgia .68536
#3 Alabama .68314
#4 UCLA .67951
#5 Oregon .67563
#6 Louisiana .67008 (Chattanooga moved into the RPI Top 75 this past weekend … adding .0014)
#7 Florida State .66584
#8 Oklahoma .66159
#9 Arizona State .65412
#10 Missouri .64967
#11 Arizona .64949
#12 Baylor .64833
#13 Tennessee .64699
#14 Washington .64230
#15 Kentucky .63925
#16 Minnesota .63853
#17 Auburn .63832
#18 South Alabama .63652 (I firmly believe South Alabama would have been hosting had they beaten the Cajuns Saturday)
#19 LSU .63322
#20 Michigan .63165
#21 Nebraska .62859
#22 Texas A&M .62700
#23 James Madison .62363
#24 Tulsa .62029
#25 Notre Dame .61708
#26 Texas .60904
#27 Central Florida .60869
#28 DePaul .60324
#29 USC Upstate .59958
#30 Mississippi State .59542
Brian
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
South Al. situation is interesting because I think there is a good chance we would have remained in the top eight even with a lose.
With that said the committee did no favors to Alabama. I think that is a tough regional for the two seed.
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cajun90
South Al. situation is interesting because I think there is a good chance we would have remained in the top eight even with a lose.
With that said the committee did no favors to Alabama. I think that is a tough regional for the two seed.
With a loss to South Alabama, the Cajuns would have finished with the #7 RPI ranking … comfortably ahead of Oklahoma … and just a hair behind Florida State.
As I said on Saturday, the Cajuns were not out of a Top 8 National Seed with a loss. In fact, I still think they would have been a Top 8 National Seed … just not #6. Probably #7.
Brian
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Oregon #5 RPI, #1 seed overall?
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GoneGolfin
#1 Florida .69033
#2 Georgia .68536
#3 Alabama .68314
#4 UCLA .67951
#5 Oregon .67563
#6 Louisiana .67008 (Chattanooga moved into the RPI Top 75 this past weekend … adding .0014)
#7 Florida State .66584
#8 Oklahoma .66159
#9 Arizona State .65412
#10 Missouri .64967
#11 Arizona .64949
#12 Baylor .64833
#13 Tennessee .64699
#14 Washington .64230
#15 Kentucky .63925
#16 Minnesota .63853
#17 Auburn .63832
#18 South Alabama .63652 (I firmly believe South Alabama would have been hosting had they beaten the Cajuns Saturday)
#19 LSU .63322
#20 Michigan .63165
#21 Nebraska .62859
#22 Texas A&M .62700
#23 James Madison .62363
#24 Tulsa .62029
#25 Notre Dame .61708
#26 Texas .60904
#27 Central Florida .60869
#28 DePaul .60324
#29 USC Upstate .59958
#30 Mississippi State .59542
Brian
I'm going to have to differ with you on that. I don't think the committee would supplant Minnesota with South Alabama, even if they did have a higher rpi score.
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lcitsh
I'm going to have to differ with you on that. I don't think the committee would supplant Minnesota with South Alabama, even if they did have a higher rpi score.
I think it was Kentucky that would have been out.
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Go_UL
I think it was Kentucky that would have been out.
Not a chance. I'm saying South Alabama's exclusion would be about the name on the shirt than the numbers on the sheet.
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lcitsh
I'm going to have to differ with you on that. I don't think the committee would supplant Minnesota with South Alabama, even if they did have a higher rpi score.
If you look at the last five seasons, the selection committee has granted National Seeds to the entire Top 16 RPI twice (in 2014 and 2013 ... the last two seasons) ... and 15 of the RPI Top 16 the other three years (2010-2012). During this span, the only teams in the RPI Top 16 not to receive a National Seed were all #16 in the RPI ... #16 Florida State (2012) ... and that one was controversial, #16 Nebraska (2011), and #16 Texas A&M (2010).
South Alabama would have finished #15 in the RPI this season (with a win Saturday over Louisiana) ... ahead of both Kentucky and Minnesota. With the way the selection committee has glued itself to the RPI, I simply do not think they would have passed over the #15 RPI team with both Minnesota and Kentucky. And as far as Kentucky is concerned, South Alabama would have had most of the better resume points ... including RPI Top 25 (5-5 vs. 9-11), RPI Top 100 (24-10 vs. 24-15), and Non-Conference RPI (#9 vs. #20).
Brian
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cajunfan337
Oregon #5 RPI, #1 seed overall?
#5 RPI Oregon (12-5-1) and #4 RPI UCLA (12-5) had the best records vs. the RPI Top 25 (next was Louisiana and Tennessee at 9-5). Oregon was the conference champion in the #2 RPI Conference, had a Road RPI of #3 (behind only Florida and UCLA ... neither of which were conference champions), and took 2/3 from UCLA. In fact, Florida was tied for #4 in SEC record.
Brian
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
"Yeah because you are smarter than Brain."
I'm not even smarter than Brian, but I don't have to be to believe that the committee, which has acted in a certain way for all the years they have assembled a bracket, will act any differently than they always have. No matter what the makeup of the committee has been, whether filled with representatives of power conferences or the majority from "smaller" conferences, there has always been shown preferential treatment towards power conference teams. Even with this committee beginning to move in what seems to be a more unbiased direction, two years does not sway me to give them the benefit of the doubt yet.
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
"Geez, you're a whiny little _____."
And you're a coward. Deal with it.
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lcitsh
"Yeah because you are smarter than Brain."
I'm not even smarter than Brian, but I don't have to be to believe that the committee, which has acted in a certain way for all the years they have assembled a bracket, will act any differently than they always have. No matter what the makeup of the committee has been, whether filled with representatives of power conferences or the majority from "smaller" conferences, there has always been shown preferential treatment towards power conference teams. Even with this committee beginning to move in what seems to be a more unbiased direction, two years does not sway me to give them the benefit of the doubt yet.
But you also must not be reading his (Brian's ... see #8) as he posts about all since 2010. The committee is following the RPI standings, not someone's jersey.
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
moorecajun
But you also must not be reading his (Brian's ... see #8) as he posts about all since 2010. The committee is following the RPI standings, not someone's jersey.
----BTW were all correct with the girls placement?? Did some think we wouldn't get the seed???
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jllanclos
I don't know what bozos were saying we wouldn't get a top 8 National Seed.
Idiots.
Too funny. Bozo here. It's the human factor of the selection process that I didn't trust.
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
moorecajun
But you also must not be reading his (Brian's ... see #8) as he posts about all since 2010. The committee is following the RPI standings, not someone's jersey.
??? Why would I not read Brian's post(s)? I understand and respect the work Brian puts in to keep people informed about the rpi and there are some things he catches that I miss, but Brian is not the only one who follows and understands the rpi process. I've been following the rpi for basketball for the last 20 years and the softball rpi for the last 10. I'm not the mathematician that Brian is, but multiplication and division and addition and subtraction are not that difficult to comprehend.
What some of you appear to be failing to understand about my stance on this particular subject is that what I believe has less to do with the use of the rpi and more to do with the options the selection committee has to make their decisions. I recognize the fact that there have been very few deviations from the groupings they are using (1-8 for national seeds, 9-16 for regional hosts), but the fact that there have been some, even minor ones, leaves me room to be skeptical about their possible actions. Remember, Brian did say "I firmly believe South Alabama would have been hosting." I believe otherwise. It doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means we have a difference of opinion.
For two years now, the committee has stayed within the 1-8 and 9-16 groupings for the seeds. It is likely that trend will continue because there are only three members scheduled to rotate off the committee and two of those three are eligible for reinstatement. There has been much national discussion that the committee has been leaning on the rpi too rigidly, so it will be interesting to see if any adjustments are made to the formula or if the committee slackens the reliance on the rpi rankings.
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CajunFan3406
Geez, you're a whiny little _____. Better?
How do hurling insults make you better? They don't. Come tell me at the games Friday. It might make you feel better.
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
making a mountain out of a molehill
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
We did get the seed...right? This is a useless "I was right...no I was right...well I would have been right if..." conversation. Who cares??!! We are hosting a regional, and will be hosting a super regional should we win. That's all that matters! Jeez.
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Are some really worried about their reputation on a message board?
Re: Official Softball RPI (Selection Time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sportsfanatic21
We did get the seed...right? This is a useless "I was right...no I was right...well I would have been right if..." conversation. Who cares??!! We are hosting a regional, and will be hosting a super regional should we win. That's all that matters! Jeez.
This "conversation" isn't about the Cajuns. GoneGolfin stated his belief that if South Alabama had won Saturday that they would be hosting a regional. I disagreed. Someone decided that I was complaining about something rather than having a simple difference of opinion with GoneGolfin.
