Extra Innings Questions:The SB Committee

[Cajunrunner]

Louisiana didn't play a single P5 softball team this year.

It's a football term.

You know exactly what I’m talking about, and you should hopefully know that regardless your feelings of the terminology, that’s also exactly how the committee views things.

[Turbine]

You know exactly what I’m talking about, and you should hopefully know that regardless your feelings of the terminology, that’s also exactly how the committee views things.

No doubt. I just plan on not adopting their mindset.

[ULvictory]

Missouri got in as an at-large with a 7-17 SEC record and dead last finish. Ole miss got in at 30-26 which included a loss to Louisiana and a 8-16 SEC record.

Tells me all I need to know on this foolishness.

[Turbine]

Missouri got in as an at-large with a 7-17 SEC record and dead last finish. Ole miss got in at 30-26 which included a loss to Louisiana and a 8-16 SEC record.

Tells me all I need to know on this foolishness.

Yeah but that amazing 33rd ranked Strength of Schedule for Missouri and 40th for Mississippi is all they needed.

Evidently, as long as an SEC team sends out an SoS of 64 or better, they are worthy of consideration.

Please.

[CajunVic]

Any set of statistics can be beat out by that same set of statistics plus a fact to get the opposite indicated result desired. I am disappointed that Leger was not able to eye these committee members into giving us a host site. I truly believe in the long run we are best where we are. Let’s go show’m . . .

[Turbine]

Any set of statistics can be beat out by that same set of statistics plus a fact to get the opposite indicated result desired. I am disappointed that Leger was not able to eye these committee members into giving us a host site. I truly believe in the long run we are best where we are. Let’s go show’m . . .

For sure!

Especially if you use a fave statistic TWICE.

[GoneGolfin]

Exactly. And they don't even hide it. The focus was on top 10 and top 25 wins THIS YEAR. It was said multiple times. Well, why this year? Because it helps you justify your decisions.

C'mon . let's be accurate and fair here in our criticism (I have seen this type of statement several times . not just you). For over a decade, Top 10 RPI wins and Top 25 wins have been stressed as being very important criteria when assessing potential national seeds. I discussed this often throughout the season as have others. I even stated repeatedly that if the Cajuns were not selected as a national seed . this would be the reason (performance against this peer group) they would fall short. We knew that no team had ever been awarded a national seed with fewer than three RPI Top 25 wins. The hope was that the Cajuns could lift their RPI high enough (8, 7, maybe 6) to put more pressure on the selection committee to award them a national seed. It still may not have been enough. But at 11, there was already precedent for not being awarded a national seed with their 2023 resume.

As I documented in other threads, this happened to Minnesota in 2017 (same 11 RPI ranking . and 2-2 vs. RPI Top 25). When it happened, Minnesota was ranked #2 in the polls and some folks were aghast. The reasoning provided by the selection committee for the exclusion of Louisiana in 2023 was exactly what was stated when Minnesota was passed over for a national seed in 2017. They did not prove themselves against the peer group in which they were being evaluated . the proof evidenced as Top 25 RPI and Top 10 wins.

Now, the committee did place more emphasis in 2023 (than in past years) on RPI Top 10 wins in assessing the Top 8 national seeds. This is why you saw significant deltas between seeding and RPI rank (both up and down). This is how they rationalized that Alabama should be a #5 seed. I do not agree with it . but this is what they did. Stanford was 0-6 vs. the RPI Top 10 and this is why they were assigned the #9 national seed with an RPI rank of 3 (they were 7-12 vs. RPI Top 25 . and thus 7-6 vs. 11->25). The real problem with the selection committee evaluation and seeding was not with the Cajuns being left out (I would not have had them as a national seed either). It was with Baylor being left out in the context of the emphasis they reiterated . RPI Top 10 and RPI Top 25 wins. Baylor performed better than Alabama . and performed better than all but four teams in the country on this all important metric for national seed selection. Yet they selected Clemson. This is where the committee fell down and was inconsistent in the application of their own criteria. I was happy to see that Utah was properly rewarded.

Brian

[CajunVic]

In other words “there is always a fact in there somewhere”

[Turbine]

If the committee is going to consider top-10 and top-25 wins "separately" remove those contests from the RPI.

They can't do it because RPI is what determines if you are in the top-10 or top-25. They have already been given their bonus points in the RPI. Including their top-11win(s) over Louisiana.

Using those wins in a separate equation as a determination is a double bonus, half of which they did not earn on the field.

[GoneGolfin]

If the committee is going to consider top-10 and top-25 wins "separately" remove those contests from the RPI.

They can't do it because RPI is what determines if you are in the top-10 or top-25. They have already been given their bonus points in the RPI. Including their top-11win(s) over Louisiana.

Using those wins in a separate equation as a determination is a double bonus, half of which they did not earn on the field.

If you recall, I fought for the removal of bonus points in the RPI system in 2012. Since that time, bonus points are no longer awarded for Top XX wins in conference . which solved the bigger problem with the RPI bonus system. If they removed the bonus for OOC wins, you would have an even bigger problem in scheduling the elite conference schools in OOC games.

The real problem is the RPI system itself and people believing too much in the rankings that it produces.

Brian

[CajunVic]

C'mon . let's be accurate and fair here in our criticism (I have seen this type of statement several times . not just you). For over a decade, Top 10 RPI wins and Top 25 wins have been stressed as being very important criteria when assessing potential national seeds. I discussed this often throughout the season as have others. I even stated repeatedly that if the Cajuns were not selected as a national seed . this would be the reason (performance against this peer group) they would fall short. We knew that no team had ever been awarded a national seed with fewer than three RPI Top 25 wins. The hope was that the Cajuns could lift their RPI high enough (8, 7, maybe 6) to put more pressure on the selection committee to award them a national seed. It still may not have been enough. But at 11, there was already precedent for not being awarded a national seed with their 2023 resume.

As I documented in other threads, this happened to Minnesota in 2017 (same 11 RPI ranking . and 2-2 vs. RPI Top 25). When it happened, Minnesota was ranked #2 in the polls and some folks were aghast. The reasoning provided by the selection committee for the exclusion of Louisiana in 2023 was exactly what was stated when Minnesota was passed over for a national seed in 2017. They did not prove themselves against the peer group in which they were being evaluated . the proof evidenced as Top 25 RPI and Top 10 wins.

Now, the committee did place more emphasis in 2023 (than in past years) on RPI Top 10 wins in assessing the Top 8 national seeds. This is why you saw significant deltas between seeding and RPI rank (both up and down). This is how they rationalized that Alabama should be a #5 seed. I do not agree with it . but this is what they did. Stanford was 0-6 vs. the RPI Top 10 and this is why they were assigned the #9 national seed with an RPI rank of 3 (they were 7-12 vs. RPI Top 25 . and thus 7-6 vs. 11->25). The real problem with the selection committee evaluation and seeding was not with the Cajuns being left out (I would not have had them as a national seed either). It was with Baylor being left out in the context of the emphasis they reiterated . RPI Top 10 and RPI Top 25 wins. Baylor performed better than Alabama . and performed better than all but four teams in the country on this all important metric for national seed selection. Yet they selected Clemson. This is where the committee fell down and was inconsistent in the application of their own criteria. I was happy to see that Utah was properly rewarded.

Brian

And that can work both ways. We got the opposite result RPI wise in baseball a couple years ago with our three wins over St. Peter’s .

[Turbine]

If you recall, I fought for the removal of bonus points in the RPI system in 2012. Since that time, bonus points are no longer awarded for Top XX wins in conference . which solved the bigger problem with the RPI bonus system. If they removed the bonus for OOC wins, you would have an even bigger problem in scheduling the elite conference schools in OOC games.

The real problem is the RPI system itself and people believing too much in the rankings that it produces.

Brian

Yet they use the RPI to establish the top 1-10-25 wins.

They are saying "this who these teams are."

But when it comes to #11 they are saying "this is who you are not."

[Turbine]

Just for fiction.

Let's say the criteria was beating teams ranked 1-15, and 1-30.

In committee, beating Louisiana would count as a top-15 win.

After seeding it would not.

. . . do they go back to the drawing board?

Along those absurd logic lines,
. How many times (historically) has the committee re-bonused a team for beating a top-10 opponent only to seed that same opponent outside of the top-10?

[GoneGolfin]

And that can work both ways. We got the opposite result RPI wise in baseball a couple years ago with our three wins over St. Peter’s .

Precisely. That is a major flaw in the RPI (overinflating teams as well as discounting teams).

Brian

[Grantvb]

Look I agree with the perception of winning this regional. I watched the 2010 team beat McNeese, aTm and LSU at their park. We’ve done it before