Committee not talking

[NewsCopy]

I (Kevin Foote) felt a little better after talking to UL Lafayette athletic director Nelson Schexnayder on Tuesday.

After all, he was having the same difficulties I was.

The truth is, folks, that getting a member of the the NCAA Division I Women’s softball selection committee to comment on penalizing the 55-6, No. 9-ranked Cajuns with a No. 5 seed in the Arizona Regional is a tough chore.

After getting nothing but answering machines with no calls back, associate athletic directors gone for the day or coaches already on the road with their teams, I finally got a voice.

When Marianna Vydra answered the phone at Oregon State with a friendly, energetic tone, I thought I’d hit the jackpot. Upon making my introductory statement, however, she quickly zapped my enthusiasm.

All questions, she claimed, about the selection process were to go through NCAA liaison Sharon Cessna.

That’s where Schexnayder was one up on me. My attempts to reach Cessna weren’t successful. I guess I don’t blame her or the committee members. Why call back again and respond to a hornets’ nest full of angry Cajuns?

For the record, the committee members are: Michigan State’s Jacquie Joseph, Bowling Green’s Janna Blais, Lynnette Johnson of Ole Miss, Vydra, Lisa Vad Thorner of the WAC, Columbia’s Merry Ormsby, Elaine Sortino of UMass, Western Kentucky’s Pam Herriford, Long Island’s Roy Kortmann and Florida Atlantic’s Joan Joyce.

Although Schexnayder did converse with Cessna, an interview with him quickly revealed that he didn’t get the real answers to his questions.

The rest of the story

Kevin Foote
kfoote@theadvertiser.com

[Turbine]

Great points by Mr. Foote, would I be to bold to say "He is a smart man."

Earlier in the week I was disagreeing (on the radio) with those who said the polls meant nothing. I used the term "Cherry Pick" to describe how they went right down the poll to get the #1 seedings. Foote went further to show how after dropping Louisiana to 40th then went right back to the poll for a series of seedings and then another series.

The polls matter it’s just that they aren't tied down to the polls.

[Turbine]

e-mail correspondence with Sharon Cessna of the NCAA Softball Selection Committee

Hello Sharon Cessna

My name is _________, and first let me say I hope my second sentence does not turn you off, but I think I should tell you up front. I run a University of Louisiana fan site http://www.raginpagin.com and we love our softball.

If you are still reading I just want you to know -that I know- you must have had a very hard time seeding all the teams, and you will never be able to please everyone. I was hoping you could answer a few questions?

I was looking at the DIII softball handbook ( 2004D3SoftballHandbook.pdf ) and while I think it gives way to many points for losing, it does lay out very plainly how the SOS is determined.

On the other hand the DI handbook ( 2004D1SoftballHandbook.pdf ) states it’s the “guidelines set forth by the championships cabinet” but overall it’s generic and non committal. I was wondering/hoping you could give me some insight (a listing) into how SOS is determined, since the handbook has it is listed separately from the RPI.

Thanks, and Geaux Cajuns

ps would it have helped Louisiana if they had let the 2,3,4 Sunbelt teams sweep them? As it would have given those conference teams a .67, .66, and .53 record respectively, with UL still over .70

[Turbine]

e-mail reply from Sharon Cessna
Mr. _________:

Division III have a point system for their strength of schedule and power ratings because they do not have a RPI.

The RPI takes all of a team's contests in consideration and is calculated with the following formula:

25% = Team's Division I winning percentage

50% = Opponent's winning percentage

25% = Opponent's, opponent's winning percentage.

Also considered in determining the strength of schedule are:
DI record
Overall RPI
Non-conference record & RPI
Conference Record and RPI
Records against teams ranked 1-25 in the RPI
Records against teams ranked 26-50 in the RPI
Records against teams ranked 51-100 in the RPI
Records against teams ranked 100+ in the RPI
Head-to-head competition
Common Opponents
Significant Wins and losses

(The RPI is sent to the conference offices at the end of the season.)

Sharon

I am still mulling it over but I think she was very kind for giving me exactly what I asked for.

I guess my only question now is, it seems the method takes some factors into account more than once, and creates the potential for some double negatives, as well as double positives.

[Turbine]

Originally posted by Turbine
I am still mulling it over but I think she was very kind for giving me exactly what I asked for.

I guess my only question now is, it seems the method takes some factors into account more than once, and creates the potential for some double negatives, as well as double positives.

I emailed Sharon Cessna my question from above almost verbatim. Below was her reply.

return e-mail from Sharon Cessna
You don't really take items into account more than once because you evaluate each area on it's own merit. For example, your non-conference RPI is part of your Overall RPI; however, once you review a teams overall RPI then you look deeper to see who the team has chosen to play in their non-conference schedule and what were the outcomes.

Thanks for taking the time to ask the pertinent questions.

[gorcajun]

With the response of Ms. Cessna to the RPI, I guess the best that schools such as Cornell and TAMUCC and other small universities is for Stefni and UL to reject any scheduling with those programs "below" the Cajuns. Thus the small schools would only play larger BCS schools, losing and not adding any value to the RPI.