Louisiana Softball Makes BR Regional

[alum81]

It appears that we got a really good draw this year. Houston barley got in and LSU is one of the lesser host teams.

Offense and base running are our weaknesses but our girls have heart and will not give up. We will advance as far as Summer's arm will take us. GEAUX GET EM LADIES.

[UncleCajun]

Uncle you might want to look into my background a little more and ask around before blasting me. I can assure you I'm no fan of the SEC but to each their own.

The RPI is a statistical piece of junk in this day and age but the terms you use "weighted" and "built in preseason" just add to the confusion for many people who read this board.

Gonegolfin and I were talking RPI and post season picks long before there even was a Ragin Pagin. Now with his background he has taken the study to a level that I certainly haven't but other than him there is probably no one else on RP that has studied the issue in as much depth as I have regarding baseball and softball post-season at-large selections and how hosting sites are determined.

With that said I believe if you did have a correct statistical model in place you would still find that the SEC would put in at least 11 teams this year. Eleven of the thirteen SEC teams had a NON-conference RPI rated in the top 25 and they performed well against that schedule winning .8749 percent of those games. Now they certainly haven't done that every year but as a league they are very strong this year.

In regards to what should change with the RPI..... It needs to be scraped. It is extremely antiquated. The model was first built in the 70's where we didn't have the computational power we have today and needed something that could make sense of the numbers but not require the purchase of a supercomputer (at the time) and/or a lot of man power.

Today we have the computational power and we also have the historical data to validate the models. Ultimately you would like to see an AI solution with machine learning. You could load in a lot of additional variables to the formula to increase the accuracy as well. The NCAA has been very much against margin of victory because of the potential for manipulation but statistically it is a valid input. Other items could be road/home/neutral etc.

So why hasn't this been done yet? I've got two theories and they are just that theories. Unless something has changed in the last year or two I believe many in the NCAA statistical group are "old school" and have been around a while. They probably don't have the skill sets to implement an AI system. The other theory is that if they do have the skill sets they are concerned about getting "buy in" from the membership at large. It's not difficult to explain the RPI formula, even when you have a bonus/penalty structure. An AI based recursive system isn't going to be as clear cut for many people who don't have a computer/stat background. For most people in the world it becomes a black box kind of approach. You can tell them the inputs and you can show them the outputs but trying to explain what happened in between (black box) isn't going to be nearly as easy.

Like I said Gonegolfin can talk circles around me on this subject but I'm no newbie either. I do believe the committee when they say they didn't take conference affiliation into account when awarding host sites. I believe based on the criteria they are tasked with utilizing that they were pretty darn close but I would have changed a few. Now if your argument is that the criteria are wrong........ you might have a point.

90,
that is why I apologized - I looked back a little on some of your posts, BUT I did not like the tone on your response earlier - seemed kind of condescending, a mini-blast, if you will - of course, I believe a lot of the criteria is wrong. I also think hosting a regional if your conference record is under .500 does not pass the smell test. But then, that is a subjective opinion.
Truthfully, while I do know about RPI, I don't know as much as you do and appreciate the opportunity to learn more. Believe me, there are a lot us that think the SEC is somehow manipulating the process, possibly through the "old school" committee, and kind of like the "old school" NCAA/NIT committee that gave LSU the home court advantage over us in basketball this year.

Missouri at 28/27 overall and 6/17 in conference is a stretch to be in the tournament, jmo.

[Mark Hemphill]

Fewest road wins of any conference that matters.

With all due respect, I don't put much stock in that stat. SEC teams don't really have to travel outside of conference because the line is long for teams willing to come to their home fields and play. Why would you want to travel when you can play quality teams at home? Seems like a no brainer to me.

[Cajun90]

90,
that is why I apologized - I looked back a little on some of your posts, BUT I did not like the tone on your response earlier - seemed kind of condescending, a mini-blast, if you will - of course, I believe a lot of the criteria is wrong. I also think hosting a regional if your conference record is under .500 does not pass the smell test. But then, that is a subjective opinion.
Truthfully, while I do know about RPI, I don't know as much as you do and appreciate the opportunity to learn more. Believe me, there are a lot us that think the SEC is somehow manipulating the process, possibly through the "old school" committee, and kind of like the "old school" NCAA/NIT committee that gave LSU the home court advantage over us in basketball this year.

Missouri at 28/27 overall and 6/17 in conference is a stretch to be in the tournament, jmo.

My prior post said "Honest question"..... so you would hopefully know I wasn't being condescending . You haven't posted much here and I honestly didn't know how much you know about the RPI and selection process.

The SEC doesn't have to manipulate the system it works right into their hands. You want to know who has been pretty good at manipulating the system? That would be the Cajuns. Hopefully that continues with Glasco.

I did say that eleven SEC teams would in my opinion be in even if we had a better model than the RPI. Obviously Missouri would be one of two that I think would probably not make the cut.

[UncleCajun]

And the rich get richer. Alabama and Oregon had the guts to come to Louisiana, even though they both lost 2 out of 3. I have no respect for SEC teams that will hide at home for the home field advantage to pad their victory total. Quality wins on the road should count twice as much as a home quality win.

[Mark Hemphill]

90,

Missouri at 28/27 overall and 6/17 in conference is a stretch to be in the tournament, jmo.

In regards to Missouri being selected for the tournament, Natalie Shock, Chairperson of the selection committee offered up the following: "We looked at their body of work on the field and they had the #2 strength of schedule in the county. They had six top 25 wins, one top 10 win. They really had no bad losses and they won fifteen games in the top 100, eleven games in the top 50, so we felt like they had done what they needed to do to be in the tournament." When asked about what criteria, besides a team's RPI, that the selection committee uses, Shock went on to say "Other than RPI, we look at top 10 wins, top 25 wins, top 50, top 100. We look at strength of schedule, we look at common opponents. We look at head-to-head, so those are some of the things that we look at when we are deciding who goes in." Based upon the criteria that Shock set out, I would say that Missouri met the litmus test.

[CajunAmos]

With all due respect, I don't put much stock in that stat. SEC teams don't really have to travel outside of conference because the line is long for teams willing to come to their home fields and play. Why would you want to travel when you can play quality teams at home? Seems like a no brainer to me.

That's why softball needs to implement a bonus/penalty calculation into the RPI like baseball. If you play on the road and win, you get 1.3 wins. If you play at home and win, you get 0.7 wins. Neutral field games get you no bonus/penalty. If forces some of those teams with 45 "home" games to get out an play.

[UncleCajun]

My prior post said "Honest question"..... so you would hopefully know I wasn't being condescending . You haven't posted much here and I honestly didn't know how much you know about the RPI and selection process.

The SEC doesn't have to manipulate the system it works right into their hands. You want to know who has been pretty good at manipulating the system? That would be the Cajuns. Hopefully that continues with Glasco.

I did say that eleven SEC teams would in my opinion be in even if we had a better model than the RPI. Obviously Missouri would be one of two that I think would probably not make the cut.

90,
like many others, I read this site 3 or 4 times a day and have since 2000, (note I joined in 2003 to be able to make posts). My big passion is softball and is the main thing I care to post about. I actually have been following softball since the very first game.
Again, I bow to your superior knowledge about the mechanics of RPI and its shortcoming.

[CajunAmos]

In regards to Missouri being selected for the tournament, Natalie Shock, Chairperson of the selection committee offered up the following: "We looked at their body of work on the field and they had the #2 strength of schedule in the county. They had six top 25 wins, one top 10 win. They really had no bad losses and they won fifteen games in the top 100, eleven games in the top 50, so we felt like they had done what they needed to do to be in the tournament." When asked about what criteria, besides a team's RPI, that the selection committee uses, Shock went on to say "Other than RPI, we look at top 10 wins, top 25 wins, top 50, top 100. We look at strength of schedule, we look at common opponents. We look at head-to-head, so those are some of the things that we look at when we are deciding who goes in." Based upon the criteria that Shock set out, I would say that Missouri met the litmus test.

They had removed the "bonus" criteria from conference games when they last modified the RPI, but I guess they found a way to put it back.

[Turbine]

With all due respect, I don't put much stock in that stat. SEC teams don't really have to travel outside of conference because the line is long for teams willing to come to their home fields and play. Why would you want to travel when you can play quality teams at home? Seems like a no brainer to me.

Due respect granted, but honestly I don't think the SEC is due any more respect than they've already been gifted.

[UncleCajun]

In regards to Missouri being selected for the tournament, Natalie Shock, Chairperson of the selection committee offered up the following: "We looked at their body of work on the field and they had the #2 strength of schedule in the county. They had six top 25 wins, one top 10 win. They really had no bad losses and they won fifteen games in the top 100, eleven games in the top 50, so we felt like they had done what they needed to do to be in the tournament." When asked about what criteria, besides a team's RPI, that the selection committee uses, Shock went on to say "Other than RPI, we look at top 10 wins, top 25 wins, top 50, top 100. We look at strength of schedule, we look at common opponents. We look at head-to-head, so those are some of the things that we look at when we are deciding who goes in." Based upon the criteria that Shock set out, I would say that Missouri met the litmus test.

If you note, I posted her article on this site earlier today. We will have to agree to disagree.
By the way, congrats to your daughter on the Bama team. She had a solid year and all us STM people are really proud of her.

[Cajunsmike]

Uncle you might want to look into my background a little more and ask around before blasting me. I can assure you I'm no fan of the SEC but to each their own.

The RPI is a statistical piece of junk in this day and age but the terms you use "weighted" and "built in preseason" just add to the confusion for many people who read this board.

Gonegolfin and I were talking RPI and post season picks long before there even was a Ragin Pagin. Now with his background he has taken the study to a level that I certainly haven't but other than him there is probably no one else on RP that has studied the issue in as much depth as I have regarding baseball and softball post-season at-large selections and how hosting sites are determined.

With that said I believe if you did have a correct statistical model in place you would still find that the SEC would put in at least 11 teams this year. Eleven of the thirteen SEC teams had a NON-conference RPI rated in the top 25 and they performed well against that schedule winning .8749 percent of those games. Now they certainly haven't done that every year but as a league they are very strong this year.

In regards to what should change with the RPI..... It needs to be scraped. It is extremely antiquated. The model was first built in the 70's where we didn't have the computational power we have today and needed something that could make sense of the numbers but not require the purchase of a supercomputer (at the time) and/or a lot of man power.

Today we have the computational power and we also have the historical data to validate the models. Ultimately you would like to see an AI solution with machine learning. You could load in a lot of additional variables to the formula to increase the accuracy as well. The NCAA has been very much against margin of victory because of the potential for manipulation but statistically it is a valid input. Other items could be road/home/neutral etc.

So why hasn't this been done yet? I've got two theories and they are just that theories. Unless something has changed in the last year or two I believe many in the NCAA statistical group are "old school" and have been around a while. They probably don't have the skill sets to implement an AI system. The other theory is that if they do have the skill sets they are concerned about getting "buy in" from the membership at large. It's not difficult to explain the RPI formula, even when you have a bonus/penalty structure. An AI based recursive system isn't going to be as clear cut for many people who don't have a computer/stat background. For most people in the world it becomes a black box kind of approach. You can tell them the inputs and you can show them the outputs but trying to explain what happened in between (black box) isn't going to be nearly as easy.

Like I said Gonegolfin can talk circles around me on this subject but I'm no newbie either. I do believe the committee when they say they didn't take conference affiliation into account when awarding host sites. I believe based on the criteria they are tasked with utilizing that they were pretty darn close but I would have changed a few. Now if your argument is that the criteria are wrong........ you might have a point.

Regardless of what system is used, major schools will manipulate their schedule to game their system to their advantage. You can do that when by playing few mid majors on road.