2014 BB: Louisiana vs McNeese

[GoneGolfin]

Well Brian, if i'm reading what you're writing correctly, then losing to UNO didn't matter all that much. Even if we beat them it would have brought our RPI down. Just not as much, correct?

Losing to them did matter. Mostly from the standpoint that our winning percentage (and thus WP) is very high and it was a home game. IOW, a win only marginally moves our WP higher (even moreso since a home win is 0.7 wins) … but a loss does much damage … especially a loss at home (counts as 1.3 losses). The converse case is true for a team with a low WP. Thus …

WP (without game vs. UNO) -> .8853
WP (with win vs. UNO) -> .8876 (only marginally higher)
WP (with loss vs. UNO) -> .8527

But there is no doubt that beating them would still have resulted in a non-trivial RPI hit. A win vs. UNO would have left UL with an RPI of .6114 (a loss vs. a win cost the Cajuns .0087 in RPI, per the above). A nice hit from where they would have been without playing them at all. But from an RPI rankings perspective (at this time), they would be at #5 with a win (despite the lower RPI) vs. #3 (pushing on Houston at #2) having not played them at all. This is because of what happened with the teams in the RPI Top 10 this week and how tightly they were clustered.

So, if you say correct then the only way to win was not to play?

I have been saying this for years.

How can this mentality be good for college baseball?

You are thinking too small. It is not just college baseball.

Also, even though we lost to UNO, in this case, if they had enough common opponents with us then wouldn't the fact that we lost to them actually almost be neutrally productive?

No. Their winning percentage (which is not the same as WP) … sans the games vs. UL … becomes a component of our OWP. Their opponents (their OWP) in aggregate become a component of our OOWP. OWP has twice the weight of OOWP.

IOW, they do play in the southland, and they di, or do play a number of commonb opponents. Wouldn't them beating us bring their RPI up even more than it brought ours down thereby actually heling our RPI more than if we had beaten them? Just wondering.

No. Them beating us only improves their WP. Them playing us immensely helps their OWP (which is the dominant weight). The only help (and it is marginal) that we get from playing them is adding our own winning percentage (sans the game(s) vs. UNO) to their OWP, which becomes a small component of our OOWP.

And our RPI is never damaged by beating them. Because neither our OWP nor our OOWP is affected by the game result(s) vs. UNO. That is … our OWP contribution to UNO does not include our games vs. UNO. As such, their OOWP contribution to UL also does not include our games vs. UNO.

Brian

[campo118]

Losing to them did matter. Mostly from the standpoint that our winning percentage (and thus WP) is very high and it was a home game. IOW, a win only marginally moves our WP higher (even moreso since a home win is 0.7 wins) … but a loss does much damage … especially a loss at home (counts as 1.3 losses). The converse case is true for a team with a low WP. Thus …

WP (without game vs. UNO) -> .8853
WP (with win vs. UNO) -> .8876 (only marginally higher)
WP (with loss vs. UNO) -> .8527

But there is no doubt that beating them would still have resulted in a non-trivial RPI hit. A win vs. UNO would have left UL with an RPI of .6114 (a loss vs. a win cost the Cajuns .0087 in RPI, per the above). A nice hit from where they would have been without playing them at all. But from an RPI rankings perspective (at this time), they would be at #5 with a win (despite the lower RPI) vs. #3 (pushing on Houston at #2) having not played them at all. This is because of what happened with the teams in the RPI Top 10 this week and how tightly they were clustered.


I have been saying this for years.


You are thinking too small. It is not just college baseball.


No. Their winning percentage (which is not the same as WP) … sans the games vs. UL … becomes a component of our OWP. Their opponents (their OWP) in aggregate become a component of our OOWP. OWP has twice the weight of OOWP.


No. Them beating us only improves their WP. Them playing us immensely helps their OWP (which is the dominant weight). The only help (and it is marginal) that we get from playing them is adding our own winning percentage (sans the game(s) vs. UNO) to their OWP, which becomes a small component of our OOWP.

And our RPI is never damaged by beating them. Because neither our OWP nor our OOWP is affected by the game result(s) vs. UNO. That is … our OWP contribution to UNO does not include our games vs. UNO. As such, their OOWP contribution to UL also does not include our games vs. UNO.

Brian

Greek to English translator anyone? On a serious note, although I can only somewhat follow what you are saying, I'm glad you frequent this site to help us (somewhat) understand how it all works. Cheers to Brian.

[GoneGolfin]

Brian,

Is there a chance that we finish with a record with say 8 or less losses, but an rpi outside of the top 16, and still host a regional. I know rpi has a lot of weight in the selection committee's decision, but they also take into consideration ranking, record, and other things that are probably above my head.

Can we finish outside of the RPI Top 16 with 8 or fewer losses? Certainly. There is a chance (though much negative would need to happen) that the Cajuns could finish outside the RPI Top 16 if they win out. It depends on how our opponents fare, to a lesser degree our opponents' opponents fare, and how the teams clustered around the Cajuns in the RPI Top XX fare.

Whether the Cajuns would host with an RPI outside the Top 16 (say 17 or 18) is another question. But you can go back to this post for a detailed analysis of what the selection committees did in 2013 and 2012 w/respect to #1 seeds, hosts, and the RPI Top 16. In 2012, all of the Top 16 RPIs that were eligible for postseason play hosted a regional as a #1 seed. Arizona State (#16 RPI) was not eligible for postseason play. In 2013, the only RPI Top 16 team not to be a #1 seed and host was Clemson (#14). Clemson finished 5th in the ACC, while Kansas State (#17) won the Big XII (#4 RPI Conference).

At a later time, I will come out with a further detailed analysis … as I have extensive data from the past four years (selection process). The trend/story is the same as with 2012 and 2013 … with 2012 and 2013 tightening even more around the RPI Top 8 (national seeds) and RPI Top 16 (regional hosts and #1 seeds).

As for the continually repeated misconception concerning polls being part of the selection process, see this post.

Brian

[CajunNation]

....So, if you say correct then the only way to win was not to play? .....

Well, baseball is a strange game....

[jllanclos]

As fans its always fun to say he should have done this or that but in reality the chances of anyone on this board knowing as much about baseball as coach Robe are almost zero.

So, you're saying there's a CHANCE????????

[jllanclos]

Can we finish outside of the RPI Top 16 with 8 or fewer losses? Certainly. There is a chance (though much negative would need to happen) that the Cajuns could finish outside the RPI Top 16 if they win out. It depends on how our opponents fare, to a lesser degree our opponents' opponents fare, and how the teams clustered around the Cajuns in the RPI Top XX fare.

Whether the Cajuns would host with an RPI outside the Top 16 (say 17 or 18) is another question. But you can go back to this post for a detailed analysis of what the selection committees did in 2013 and 2012 w/respect to #1 seeds, hosts, and the RPI Top 16. In 2012, all of the Top 16 RPIs that were eligible for postseason play hosted a regional as a #1 seed. Arizona State (#16 RPI) was not eligible for postseason play. In 2013, the only RPI Top 16 team not to be a #1 seed and host was Clemson (#14). Clemson finished 5th in the ACC, while Kansas State (#17) won the Big XII (#4 RPI Conference).

At a later time, I will come out with a further detailed analysis … as I have extensive data from the past four years (selection process). The trend/story is the same as with 2012 and 2013 … with 2012 and 2013 tightening even more around the RPI Top 8 (national seeds) and RPI Top 16 (regional hosts and #1 seeds).

As for the continually repeated misconception concerning polls being part of the selection process, see this post.

Brian

So why even have a selection committee? Let's just post the bracket in order of RPI and stop pretending that's not what we're already doing.

#13 RPI? That's your seed. Done. Let's go to battle.

[DieHard1280]

So why even have a selection committee? Let's just post the bracket in order of RPI and stop pretending that's not what we're already doing.

#13 RPI? That's your seed. Done. Let's go to battle.

I see what you're saying but all the discussion has been about the top 16 seeds and hosting. I think (whatever that's worth) that outside of the top 16 seeds, there are considerations besides pure RPI. The committee does serve a purpose in determining where teams go and their seeding within the regionals themselves.

[GoneGolfin]

Greek to English translator anyone? On a serious note, although I can only somewhat follow what you are saying, I'm glad you frequent this site to help us (somewhat) understand how it all works. Cheers to Brian.

Thanks campo.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

So why even have a selection committee? Let's just post the bracket in order of RPI and stop pretending that's not what we're already doing.

#13 RPI? That's your seed. Done. Let's go to battle.

DieHard commented on the at-large selections in general. And the RPI certainly plays it's significant role in these selections ... but it is not a run down the RPI list process.

As for RPI and the national seeds, as well as the remaining #1 seeds ... while RPI dominates, the RPI ordering does not necessarily dictate seed ordering (for national seeds). Conference titles from one of the elite conferences play a big role in seed ordering.

Also, conference titles (and sometimes second place finishes) from the top RPI conferences play a big part in the selection of national seeds. This is where a non top 8 RPI team from an elite conference can be awarded a national seed.

As an example ... if the season ended today, Alabama would be the SEC champs. The SEC is the #1 RPI conference. Alabama would be a national seed, despite the RPI rank of 15 entering the week. That would be the best thing that could happen to UL (given the series win over Alabama).

Brian

[CajunRebel]

GoneGolfin,

I don't know how much we're paying you for all this analysis but it's not enough.

[GoneGolfin]

GoneGolfin,

I don't know how much we're paying you for all this analysis but it's not enough.

Chuckle ... paid?

Brian

[Bandwagon King]

Losing to them did matter. Mostly from the standpoint that our winning percentage (and thus WP) is very high and it was a home game. IOW, a win only marginally moves our WP higher (even moreso since a home win is 0.7 wins) … but a loss does much damage … especially a loss at home (counts as 1.3 losses). The converse case is true for a team with a low WP. Thus …

WP (without game vs. UNO) -> .8853
WP (with win vs. UNO) -> .8876 (only marginally higher)
WP (with loss vs. UNO) -> .8527

But there is no doubt that beating them would still have resulted in a non-trivial RPI hit. A win vs. UNO would have left UL with an RPI of .6114 (a loss vs. a win cost the Cajuns .0087 in RPI, per the above). A nice hit from where they would have been without playing them at all. But from an RPI rankings perspective (at this time), they would be at #5 with a win (despite the lower RPI) vs. #3 (pushing on Houston at #2) having not played them at all. This is because of what happened with the teams in the RPI Top 10 this week and how tightly they were clustered.


I have been saying this for years.


You are thinking too small. It is not just college baseball.


No. Their winning percentage (which is not the same as WP) … sans the games vs. UL … becomes a component of our OWP. Their opponents (their OWP) in aggregate become a component of our OOWP. OWP has twice the weight of OOWP.


No. Them beating us only improves their WP. Them playing us immensely helps their OWP (which is the dominant weight). The only help (and it is marginal) that we get from playing them is adding our own winning percentage (sans the game(s) vs. UNO) to their OWP, which becomes a small component of our OOWP.

And our RPI is never damaged by beating them. Because neither our OWP nor our OOWP is affected by the game result(s) vs. UNO. That is … our OWP contribution to UNO does not include our games vs. UNO. As such, their OOWP contribution to UL also does not include our games vs. UNO.

Brian

To quote Vinny Barbarino,"I'm so confused". It was much easier for me to decipher hydrologic flow charts & figure river currents in MCF/sec. than the college RPI. I appreciate your breaking it all down, but the more I try to get it, the more I see big problems with it. Just looking down the list of teams their records, & seeing the conferences they play in, it appears that the major conferences have figured out a way to game the system all over again. Two glaring examples to me are Ole Miss & Stanford. Ole miss is in the top 8 RPI with a fair but not great record & may actually get a national seed at this rate simply by being in the SEC. Same thing with Stanford. I think they have a losing record & a 36 RPI. Yet no one in the Pac-12 is even in the RPI top ten.