Regional 2019

[GoneGolfin]

Another metric is live eye team talent analysis as reflected in the polls.

Except that the polls do not reflect "live eye team talent". Most of the folks voting in the polls have never seen the teams for whom they are voting. At best they are examining recent results ... at worst on reputation or gaudiness of the W-L record (Something I think inflates the Cajuns' poll ranking). In some cases, the folks responsible for voting delegate their votes to underlings.

Yeah ... I am not impressed with the polling process.

Brian

[GeauxLouisiana]

Over emphasized.

Only half of the host teams are facing a top-25 "RPI" opponent.

So what if the host team is facing an opponent better than them. I mean, it's happening in Oxford and no one seems to mind.

There is a difference from rewarding the overall season and stacking the RPI advancement deck.

[Turbine]

Except that the polls do not reflect "live eye team talent". Most of the folks voting in the polls have never seen the teams for whom they are voting. At best they are examining recent results ... at worst on reputation or gaudiness of the W-L record (Something I think inflates the Cajuns' poll ranking). In some cases, the folks responsible for voting delegate their votes to underlings.

Yeah ... I am not impressed with the polling process.

Brian

I've never been impressed with polling either but at times the voters or underlings have actually faced the opponent they vote for or against, so it's not just W/L.

Not always.

More oft than not, you are more than likely correct.

The polls though are in some ways no different than grabbing a portion of the RPI. The Cajuns inch their way up and other teams make massive jumps based on a good weekend.

[Cajun90]

Direct from the NCAA softball championship manual....

The RPI is intended to be used as one of many valuable resources provided to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. It never should be considered anything but an additional evaluation tool.

[Turbine]

How can one be considered a host team when they didn't play any like opponents during the year?

Hosts are not facing "like opponents."

If your argument had an ounce of value they would only consider your record vs top 16 RPI. Of course that's absurd.

They are supposed to look at your entire body of work. Yet through the years we've seen them use opposite ends logic to notch down the Cajuns.

[GoneGolfin]

RPI looks at the entirety of the "quality of competition."

Ole Miss is below Louisiana in RPI because they didn't perform across the board.

When Louisiana had the #1 ooc RPI in the country, the Farmer led committee made the excuse to focus on the bottom end of their schedule.

Why does Ole Miss' bottom end get ignored just because they faced a quality top end. They have an,anchor that drags them down, losses.

LA RPI #17
OM RPI #18

RPI attempts to "look at the entirety of the "quality of competition"". But does a poor job of doing so due to the many SOS flaws I have discussed for years. But also given that the RPI does this by averaging results (and we know in statistics, averages do not nearly illustrate the entire story ... they can also distort ... and thus are typically used as just another piece of information), it can lead to results that cannot depict how a team might fare against its supposed peer group (in this case, national seeds) ... and thus an appropriate strength rating.

With the RPI, you can have two teams that play the following schedules ...

Team A-> All opponents within the Top 25
Team B -> All opponents between 50->125

Team B could have the slightly higher RPI. But in no way does this indicate that Team B is the stronger team. The RPI is not capable of doing this. This is where the averaging and the RPI SOS itself breaks down. This is also why the selection committee wants some proof that a given team is qualified to be considered among a certain peer group. This is why there is criteria in the selection process that is more than just RPI (which cannot and does not work by itself).

And the anchor that drags Ole Miss down to #18 (just below Louisiana) is the # of losses they have ... not their SOS (or bottom of their schedule).

All of the above said ... for several years the criteria for a national seed has been explicit and well known. This is the first season that a team with only three wins vs. the RPI Top 25 has qualified for a national seed (the prior minimum was four) ... so you can get an idea of what is expected. Record vs. Top 10 RPI is also important and is why James Madison did not get the nod over Michigan. Not only did the Cajuns not have three wins vs. the RPI Top 25 ... they had zero and played only one game. They only won two games vs. the RPI Top 50 and played three measly games vs. the RPI Top 50. For weeks I have been saying that the Cajuns will not be hosting this season ... and explained exactly why. Why folks are surprised by this is beyond me. Simply said ... the Cajuns did not deserve a national seed because they failed spectacularly in meeting one of the most important criteria for national seeds (maybe the most important). I am not assigning blame anywhere. Several things contributed to the Cajuns' schedule being what it was in the end. It is what it is and I know it will be rectified. But it is silly to be upset with the selection committee in this instance. That is putting your head in the sand and not listening to what the committee has outlined. I think James Madison has a case against the committee. The Cajuns do not. They never gave the committee a chance to make them a national seed.

Brian

[J-Town Cajun]

I’ve always said let the odds makers do the rankings of the polls. Non-biased and their livelihood depends on it. My guess UL would be one of the top 16 teams in the country to win it all, therefore they should be hosting a regional.

[Turbine]

Direct from the NCAA softball championship manual....

The RPI is intended to be used as one of many valuable resources provided to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. It never should be considered anything but an additional evaluation tool.

We know that, but cherry picking INSIDE of the RPI is not using the RPI, it's dismantling it.

[Cajun90]

We know that, but cherry picking INSIDE of the RPI is not using the RPI, it's dismantling it.

You are obviously on one of your " I'm right and your wrong" and nothing else matters moments.... I'll just step out of this one for a while and go have a discussion with my fence post and brick wall.

[Turbine]

RPI attempts "to look at the entirety of the "quality of competition"". But does a poor job of doing so due to the many SOS flaws I have discussed for years. But also given that the RPI does this by averaging results (and we know in statistics, averages do not nearly illustrate the entire story ... and thus are typically used as just another piece of information), it can lead to results that cannot depict how a team might fare against its supposed peer group (in this case, national seeds).

With the RPI, you can have two teams that play the following schedules ...

Team A-> All opponents within the Top 25
Team B -> All opponents between 50->125

Team B could have the slightly higher RPI. But in no way does this indicate that Team B is the stronger team. The RPI is not capable of doing this. This is where the averaging and the RPI SOS itself breaks down. This is also why the selection committee wants some proof that a given team is qualified to be considered among a certain peer group. This is why there is criteria in the selection process that is more than just RPI (which cannot and does not work by itself).

And the anchor that drags Ole Miss down to #18 (just below Louisiana) is the # of losses they have ... not their SOS (or bottom of their schedule).

All of the above said ... for several years the criteria for a national seed has been explicit and well known. This is the first season that a team with only three wins vs. the RPI Top 25 has qualified for a national seed (the prior minimum was four) ... so you can get an idea of what is expected. Record vs. Top 10 RPI is also important and is why James Madison did not get the nod over Michigan. Not only did the Cajuns not have three wins vs. the RPI Top 25 ... they had zero and played only one game. They only won two games vs. the RPI Top 50 and played three measly games vs. the RPI Top 50. For weeks I have been saying that the Cajuns will not be hosting this season ... and explained exactly why. Why folks are surprised by this is beyond me. Simply said ... the Cajuns did not deserve a national seed because they failed spectacularly in meeting one of the most important criteria for national seeds (maybe the most important). I am not assigning blame anywhere. Several things contributed to the Cajuns' schedule being what it was in the end. It is what it is and I know it will be rectified. But it is silly to be upset with the selection committee in this instance. That is putting your head in the sand and not listening to what the committee has outlined. I think James Madison has a case against the committee. The Cajuns do not. They never gave the committee a chance to make them a national seed.

Brian

I know you said you didn't track RPI this year (due to no chance to host I believe) (that may have been baseball)

To me facing and losing is a better indicator of poor rank than cancelled games.

I have said for years you could plop the MLB World Series champ incognito into a poor schedule and under the system their true rank would go unrecognized.

[GoneGolfin]

I have said for years you could plop the MLB World Series champ incognito into a poor schedule and under system their true rank would go unrecognized.

Which is why you need direct evidence (playing games against those peer teams) ... instead of relying solely on a flawed system such as the RPI to make your case. Maybe the Cajuns are one of the Top 16 teams. I sure hope they prove it this weekend. But they did not give the committee the information/evidence they needed to award such.

Brian

[RaginDave]

The Cajuns got hurt because of the following reasons

Sunbelt was really weak this season. Overall it was t bad but the teams that are usually top 50 were not. USA was dreadful. Troy Texas state and others ended up just outside the top 50. That would or could ha e been another 6-9 games vs top 50 teams.

Baylor fell apart after the injury to there #1 pitcher. They were top 50 early but finished 18-31 on the season due to injury at one point they were 10-7 with some solid wins. They finished 8-24.

Did not get to face oregon state and Oklahoma twice. We would have gone 1-1 minimum vs them. Two top 50 teams

Fordham a usual top 100 team ended up okay but was a mess early and never got inside the top 100

Should not have played UIW and ATM-CC at all killed our RPI. They were both worse than ULM the worst SBC team.

Bad season by Cal.

Loss to mcneese. They ended up a top 100 team. That loss hurt at home.