This Super Regional is ridiculous

[GoneGolfin]

So VO we need to kick the door in every year, we will never be given any respect until we tare it out of their cold dead hands.

Yesterday I heard something that really upset me. Farmer, according to Jay Walker, felt we were properly seeded. Some of the criteria, ie excuses used, were lack of numerous games against the elite programs, and one bad loss. Yes we had one bad loss, and that loss to ULM whose UPI ended up 131, and ASU had a loss against McNeese who ended up 108. Not a lot of wiggle room there. So checking out TAMU and they have a loss against no. 98 New Mexico. Now 108 and 98 are better than 131 but not much. As you move into those numbers the percentage difference drops a lot.

Whether or not Scott truly believes the Cajuns were seeded correctly, I think he is certainly toeing the company line.

The "bad loss" criteria seems to be an excuse to justify the seeding. In fact, I think it is nonsense. Conisder the following ...

#7 seed Tennesse lost to #202 Winthrop (16-39 record) at a neutral site.
#8 seed Texas A&M lost to #121 Iowa State. They also lost to #96 Pacific and #98 New Mexico.
#9 seed Missouri lost to #155 Eastern Kentucky at a neutral site and #122 Murray State at home. With an RPI rank of #14, that is being rewarded.
#10 Georgia lost to #93 NC State.
#11 Oregon lost to #98 New Mexico.
#13 Arizona lost to #107 New Mexico State.

Also, as you mentioned, #3 Arizona State lost to #109 McNeese State.

As for games against Top 25 competition ... I think wins are more important. The committee also must realize that it is impossible for non-elite programs to schedule large numbers of these games. They might as well tell schools that are not in the elite conferences that you will never be able to obtain a Top 8 seed.

Louisiana had (4) wins vs. the RPI Top 25. Tennessee had just three more wins... (7) ... but it took them 14 tries to earn those (7) wins. The Cajuns needed four games to win four.

#8 Texas A&M was 9-9 vs. the RPI Top 25. Some #1 seeds had losing records ... #11 Oregon was 11-12, #13 Arizona was 11-15, #12 UCLA was 10-16, and #10 Georgia was 6-8. We saw what happened to Texas A&M and UCLA. #9 Missouri and #6 Texas were both 9-8.

Please tell me how Georgia with an RPI ranking of 15 and a 6-8 record vs. the RPI Top 25 gets a #10 seed and the Cajuns earn a #14 seed? Is it because the Bulldogs played (14) games vs. the RPI Top 25 ... even though they won only (6)? I am sorry, but simply scheduling these games does not earn you a top seed. Performance matters. Winning matters.

I have zero doubt, not 1% doubt that the Ragin'Cajuns would have done better than TAMU, and Mizzou given thier schedules.

Texas A&M earning a #8 seed with a #8 RPI ... with 16 losses ... is testament to how broken the system truly is ... starting with the RPI as implemented by NCAA Softball.

Brian

[BabbForHeisman]

Really, ASU should be more ____ed about this than we are. Imagine being a #3 and having to play a team of our caliber in the Super Regionals. Their play throughout the season probably earned them an easier road than that.

[CajunEXPRESS]

Thanks for putting together the numbers. I sure missed some this morning as I was in a hurry and looking only at a couple of schools.

It is all BS. I told Jay they, the committee, would use whatever numbers they needed to justify their bad decisions. He got pretty PO'd at me for saying that. Your numbers continue to justify my sniff test, as well as the objective test.

[jllanclos]

I don't think South AL was outside the top 99. I don't think FIU was out of the top 99 either. They lost 0 out of conference games. They were 17-1 against the NCAA field. They lost only 4 games all to conference teams. The three of the losses were where the other team had 3 chances to win one game. ASU lost to McNeese. Farmer is an apologist and has the backbone of an invertebrate. He would not stick up for his athletic programs against the big boys unless one of us had his testicles in a vise. (If he has any)

I agree with everything up until biology class started.

Farmer had no say-so in where the Cajuns were slotted.

[GoneGolfin]

Thanks for putting together the numbers. I sure missed some this morning as I was in a hurry and looking only at a couple of schools.

It is all BS. I told Jay they, the committee, would use whatever numbers they needed to justify their bad decisions. He got pretty PO'd at me for saying that. Your numbers continue to justify my sniff test, as well as the objective test.

Well, I do not agree with you here either. There is no evidence that the committee is intentionally using numbers to slant the seedings the way they want them or the way they see them (which was the gist of your radio conversation with Jay). You cannot prove intent. What the numbers I provided do show is that the selection committee is simply inherently biased towards the elite conference schools ... in both the selection process and in their use of an inherently biased formula that dominates their selection process. It is not that they set out to implement an agenda. They simply utilize poor tools to make their decisions and allow the "safeness" of selecting an elite conference school as a top seed drive their thinking. You know the old mantra ... "Nobody ever got fired for buying XXX".

I honestly think that the committee should be better grounded in mathematics and analytics ... such that they can better understand the flawed tools they are using to make decisions (and can drive the proper changes here) and so that they can simply make better overall subjective decisions. I disagree with others when they say that "the RPI is just a tool". No. It is the tool ... and it drives the bus. And I have hoards of selection time RPI rankings and seedings that prove this.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

Did Kevin Foote write that article? It was spot on. Our softball program seeding issue is a microcosm of the larger issue going on with the super conferences... the already chosen preorchestrated preordained preferrential programs... having drawn the lines in the sand long ago... but now demanding that a wall be erected to keep the underfunded out of the game.

Kevin identifies a "double penalty" situation with softball.

Actually, Kevin understated the problem. He did not address what is a "triple penalty" situation with softball. That is the inane RPI bonus system implemented in softball. I sent him a detailed narrative of what I thought were the problems with the system.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

I'm going to take a lot of heat for this, but I heard Farmer's rationale for his comments, and it's hard to disagree.

You can certainly have a contrarian opinion on this board ... but your data must be correct.

One big thing the committee looked at was "very bad losses" - losses to teams outside of the top 99 RPI. We had four of them. Many teams had none.

Unequivocally not true on both counts. The Cajuns had one "bad loss" ... to #131 ULM ... not four. The other three losses came to teams ranked #43, #63, and #67. Another thing to note, the Cajuns had a winning record over every single team they played this season. How many other teams can say that? None!

Meanwhile, there are several teams seeded ahead of Louisiana that had similar or worse "bad losses". I recounted them in another post. But a summary ...

#3 Arizona State had (1) ... #109
#7 Tennessee had (1) whopper of a loss ... #202
#8 Texas A&M had (1) ... #121 ... and arguably two more (#96 and #98)
#9 Missouri had (2) ... #159 and #124
#10 Georgia had (1) #93
#11 Oregon had (1) loss to a #98 team
#13 Arizona had (1) ... #107

We had 4 wins against top 25 rpi teams. Some teams had many. From a selection committee member's point of view, that actually made sense.

Some teams ... like #7 Tennessee and #10 Georgia had (7) and (6) wins vs. the RPI Top 25 respectively. But they needed 14 games each to record those wins. Are you honestly going to tell me that going 6-8 vs. the RPI Top 25 and 7-7 vs. the RPI Top 25 is better than going 4-0? And warrants Georgia jumping five spots from their RPI rank of 15?

Brian

[jllanclos]

You can certainly have a contrarian opinion on this board ... but your data must be correct.


Unequivocally not true on both counts. The Cajuns had one "bad loss" ... to #131 ULM ... not four. The other three losses came to teams ranked #43, #63, and #67. Another thing to note, the Cajuns had a winning record over every single team they played this season. How many teams can say that?

Meanwhile, there are several teams seeded ahead of Louisiana that had similar or worse "bad losses". I recounted them in another post. But a summary ...

#3 Arizona State had (1) ... #109
#7 Tennessee had (1) whopper of a loss ... #202
#8 Texas A&M had (1) ... #121 ... and arguably two more (#96 and #98)
#9 Missouri had (2) ... #159 and #124
#10 Georgia had (1) #93
#11 Oregon had (1) loss to a #98 team
#13 Arizona had (1) ... #107


Some teams ... like #7 Tennessee and #10 Georgia had (7) and (6) wins vs. the RPI Top 25 respectively. But they needed 14 games each to record those wins. Are you honestly going to tell me that going 6-8 vs. the RPI Top 25 and 7-7 vs. the RPI Top 25 is better than going 4-0? And warrants Georgia jumping five spots from their RPI rank of 15?

Brian

Brian,
Never let the facts get in the way of a solid message board rant!

I stand corrected.

Happy to head over to Tempe and whoop up on some Devils, though.

[VObserver]

I don't think South AL was outside the top 99. I don't think FIU was out of the top 99 either. They lost 0 out of conference games. They were 17-1 against the NCAA field. They lost only 4 games all to conference teams. The three of the losses were where the other team had 3 chances to win one game. ASU lost to McNeese. Farmer is an apologist and has the backbone of an invertebrate. He would not stick up for his athletic programs against the big boys unless one of us had his testicles in a vise. (If he has any)

You would be correct. USA was top 40, FIU and Troy were both Top 75 or so, ULM was 131. Also, our Non-Conference RPI was 1. Yes, 1. The absolute best RPI in non-conference games in the country. #2 was Alabama and if I remember correctly # 3 was Cal. I have an issue with us being seeded 14. I honestly believe that a more accurate seed would have been around 7 or 8.

At this point, though, that is all moot. When [yes, when] we get to the WCWS our side of the bracket should have us and Alabama; and the other side should have Cal and Oklahoma. The NC will be won by one of those four. I honestly do not see anyone else in the field with the talent to beat 3 of those 4 on the way to the championship.

[jllanclos]

Are you honestly going to tell me that going 6-8 vs. the RPI Top 25 and 7-7 vs. the RPI Top 25 is better than going 4-0? And warrants Georgia jumping five spots from their RPI rank of 15?

Brian

Nope, I'm not. Just trying to make myself feel better about it, I guess.

I'm still trying to figure out how Washington wins 4 of their last 20 and warrants a number one seed over the likes of Stanford (who swept them)... Seems like every year, in every sport, you can pick your spots to argue over the selections. But in softball, it hardly seems like much thought or care is put into the seedings. At least that's what's shown in the results.

Yes, that totally contradicts everything else I've said. What can I say? Now I've had my coffee, and my reasoning faculties are returning.