SB 2023: Regional Hosting or Not? NOT!

[Turbine]

Turbine, RPI does not take every fact into consideration. RPI is a very poor measuring stick, but we are still stuck with it. I have explained ad nauseum over the years how you can game the RPI system to manufacture a very high RPI rank. You can manufacture a high ranking (optimizing your schedule) even without beating a single Top 25 team. In this situation, you are overrated relative to your RPI ranking. This is why you simply cannot make seeding decisions on RPI alone.

Brian

I understand the need to tweak the importance of a stat as well as the idea that a metric can be over or under inflated and needs to be adjusted.

What 'fact' that has no current presence in the RPI would you suggest needs to be added?

[Bandwagon King]

You are making extreme statements that I did not make.

You can certainly optimize your schedule to where you can achieve an RPI ranking considerably higher than your strength/worth. Just like you can have an RPI ranking that discounts your strength. This is what I am saying. And because of this . the shortcomings of the RPI system itself . you cannot rely on it alone.

And BTW, you can manufacture an RPI ranking that is much higher than the RPI rankings of the teams that are on your schedule. I can fabricate a schedule without a single team in the RPI Top 50 that would result in a Top 16 RPI ranking . while still only losing 8% -> 10% of your games. This does nothing to prove that you are a Top 16 team. This is a significant problem in the system.

Brian

Dude, you're a genius. I always enjoy your posts. Thanks for al the valuable information you put out Brian.

[Bandwagon King]

So, I've done a little bit of research & I like where UL sits in the bracket. From what I see UL should be hosting this regional though. LSU should be coming here. But at least they give us a chance to get to OKC. And once these Cajuns get there, they have a shot. I'll also be pulling for Central Arkansas. They have have a decent shot to get there as well. Go Cajuns!!!

[Turbine]

Turbine, RPI does not take every fact into consideration. RPI is a very poor measuring stick, but we are still stuck with it

Granted, but as the measuring stick used, every fact used to determine the top 10 and top 25 is in the RPI.

Then to ignore RPI calculation #11 and say it is wrong. is wrong.

I wonder how many on the committee knew or know that Louisiana had a shot at RPI #6 going in to the conference tournaments?

[JMV JustMyView]

So, I've done a little bit of research & I like where UL sits in the bracket. From what I see UL should be hosting this regional though. LSU should be coming here. But at least they give us a chance to get to OKC. And once these Cajuns get there, they have a shot. I'll also be pulling for Central Arkansas. They have have a decent shot to get there as well. Go Cajuns!!!

I hate LSU, but you know nothing about college softball. In no way should LSU be coming to Lafayette.

[moorecajun]

Is there video of that anywhere? Been looking for it, but can’t find it.

It was still on espn yesterday; I watched it. We were the only team to not be up and excited about our announcement.

Let's go make our own announcement this weekend!

GEAUX CAJUNS!

[RaginDave]

I hate LSU, but you know nothing about college softball. In no way should LSU be coming to Lafayette.

If anyone believes that LSU should not be hosting and should be coming to Lafayette they are out of their minds. I am no LSU fan, as is clearly known by anyone who knows me, but LSU has the #8 RPI in the country, they went 27-3 in non conference play with the #8 Non Conference SOS, they were 9-10 vs Top 25 RPI teams, 21-15 vs Top 50's. They played in the #1 conference in all of softball and finished 13-11. They deserve to be hosting, no question, this is not and should not be about LSU. The reality is UL should be hosting as well. UL's problem came down to a handful of games and if they could have had a couple of different results in a couple of critical games, we would not be having this discussion.

7-6 loss to Michigan
7-6 loss to Arkansas
4-3 loss to UCLA
5-3 loss to App State
2-1 loss to Baylor
4-2 loss to A&M
8-7 loss to Troy

9 runs between 7 games. The A&M, Baylor, Michigan, Arkansas and UCLA games were the most costly, because that is the difference between going 2-9 vs Top 25 and 7-4. Had we won those 5 games we would have been overall 22-4 vs top 50 teams.

The person who originally posted this I have blocked, so I didn't read the original post, but seriously thinking LSU should not be hosting is absolute nonsense.

[GoneGolfin]

Granted, but as the measuring stick used, every fact used to determine the top 10 and top 25 is in the RPI.

Then to ignore RPI calculation #11 and say it is wrong. is wrong.

I wonder how many on the committee knew or know that Louisiana had a shot at RPI #6 going in to the conference tournaments?

The committee was not ignoring the Cajuns' RPI rank. They were in the discussion for a national seed. There were simply schools with better resumes for those final spots. Those schools also demonstrated acceptable performance vs. the RPI Top 25 and RPI Top 10. The Cajuns did not. They were not far away . it might have been as small as holding the lead against UCLA in the 7th. Or instead, maybe a couple more RPI Top 25 wins. In no way was this surprising based on the specific and understandable criteria the committee has used in the past.

It is Baylor that should feel slighted, not Louisiana. Baylor did what the committee outlined . even more than what Alabama was rewarded for . but was passed over for a national seed.

Brian

[CajunVic]

There got to be a fact in there somewhere . . .

[Turbine]

The committee was not ignoring the Cajuns' RPI rank. They were in the discussion for a national seed. There were simply schools with better resumes for those final spots. Those schools also demonstrated acceptable performance vs. the RPI Top 25 and RPI Top 10. The Cajuns did not. They were not far away . it might have been as small as holding the lead against UCLA in the 7th. Or instead, maybe a couple more RPI Top 25 wins. In no way was this surprising based on the specific and understandable criteria the committee has used in the past.

It is Baylor that should feel slighted, not Louisiana. Baylor did what the committee outlined . even more than what Alabama was rewarded for . but was passed over for a national seed.

Brian

Baylor of course, so turning attention away from Louisiana for a second, several teams could have legitimate gripes.

For example, when they double dipped on the RPI and gifted Alabama a "5-Seed" did they credit the teams that beat Alabama 18 times? Currently their resume says they beat a 5-seed, not a 12-RPI, but was it considered?

Were those teams credited for having beat a 5-seed?

I don't think they were, even though by the double bonus metrics used, those 18 wins would now be even more impressive.

When they double dip on something that is already counted, they zap credibility from somewhere else.

[CajunVic]

A fact is worth only what a fact is worth . . .

[GoneGolfin]

Baylor of course, so turning attention away from Louisiana for a second, several teams could have legitimate gripes.

For example, when they double dipped on the RPI and gifted Alabama a "5-Seed" did they credit the teams that beat Alabama 18 times? Currently their resume says they beat a 5-seed, not a 12-RPI, but was it considered?

Were those teams credited for having beat a 5-seed?

I don't think they were, even though by the double bonus metrics used, those 18 wins would now be even more impressive.

When they double dip on something that is already counted, they zap credibility from somewhere else.

Alabama was a RPI Top 25 win regardless. If considering Alabama as a Top 10 team meant something significant for a team (Ex. beating out a team for a Top 8 or Top 16 national seed . or making the field of 64), they might very well have considered that in their thinking. They were obviously high on Alabama and a win over Bama would standout to them. It may have been part of the reason why Tennessee (3-1 vs. Alabama) snagged a #4 seed with a #8 RPI ranking. It may have played a role in Texas State making the field of 64. You certainly could have argued for other teams. But that was a big win and maybe the committee valued it more than just an RPI Top 25 win.

Brian

[DieHard 1280]

The committee was not ignoring the Cajuns' RPI rank. They were in the discussion for a national seed. There were simply schools with better resumes for those final spots. Those schools also demonstrated acceptable performance vs. the RPI Top 25 and RPI Top 10. The Cajuns did not. They were not far away . it might have been as small as holding the lead against UCLA in the 7th. Or instead, maybe a couple more RPI Top 25 wins. In no way was this surprising based on the specific and understandable criteria the committee has used in the past.

It is Baylor that should feel slighted, not Louisiana. Baylor did what the committee outlined . even more than what Alabama was rewarded for . but was passed over for a national seed.

Brian

Hey Brian, I asked in a different thread and didn’t see a response so sorry if I missed it. My question was why was the team so shocked that they were not awarded for their #11? RPI? Is Glasco not aware of the reality in softball as far as what the committee looks at for determining national seeds? If so, I would think he could have set their expectations a little better. He has to know that the 2-9 record against top-25 seeds didn’t look good on their resume, and would be a detriment. Or do you think it was a combination of not getting a national seed AND being sent to BR for the trillionth time?

[CajunVic]

Hey Brian, I asked in a different thread and didn’t see a response so sorry if I missed it. My question was why was the team so shocked that they were not awarded for their #11? RPI? Is Glasco not aware of the reality in softball as far as what the committee looks at for determining national seeds? If so, I would think he could have set their expectations a little better. He has to know that the 2-9 record against top-25 seeds didn’t look good on their resume, and would be a detriment. Or do you think it was a combination of not getting a national seed AND being sent to BR for the trillionth time?

In speaking with a couple softball players at the baseball game on Sunday, they’re expectations were properly set.

It was definitely the combination of not getting a seed, and mostly being sent to BR again, which triggered the reactions of the players.

[GoneGolfin]

Hey Brian, I asked in a different thread and didn’t see a response so sorry if I missed it. My question was why was the team so shocked that they were not awarded for their #11? RPI? Is Glasco not aware of the reality in softball as far as what the committee looks at for determining national seeds? If so, I would think he could have set their expectations a little better. He has to know that the 2-9 record against top-25 seeds didn’t look good on their resume, and would be a detriment. Or do you think it was a combination of not getting a national seed AND being sent to BR for the trillionth time?

Sorry . missed it.

I do not know what expectations were or were not set. But Glasco did have a quote in one of Foote's articles that indicated the team was following the prognostications of several of the softball sites . and they all had the Cajuns in the field. Eric Lopez (Extra Inning Softball) was operating off of incorrect information that no team with an RPI ranking as high as 11 has ever been excluded as a national seed. When in fact Minnesota had just six years ago (2017) . and under the same circumstances as that of the Cajuns. It was about performance against the national seed peer group (or lack thereof). This was the prime example (that made big news at the time) and precedent that concerned me.

“They saw Extra Inning Softball, D1 Softball and Softball America – everybody had them hosting,” UL coach Gerry Glasco said.

But even if you have those concerns . and I am sure Glasco did . you certainly keep them close to the vest and let the process play out.

Brian