USA/NFCA Softball Poll is Out

[Cajun90]

Reality check ... for me: If UL had not played those 10 detrimental games would they really be a much better team than they are now?

Flip that: Lets say Arizona State had the time to play 10 more games at the end of the season, and they played the same teams that brought UL down. Does anyone think they would be less "worthy" of being a #1 overall seed?

RPI would say Arizona State was a much worse team for it.

To me it seems there is the flaw in not recognizing if a team does what it is suppose to do to an opponent. Like RH, they didn't give up 20 runs in any game the rest of year, much less lost by 20.

Forget what the RPI numbers are for a minute. IF Arizona had played those teams as you suggest then yes I would be less inclined to find them worthy of a #1 seed. A team should be judged on the body of their work and when it includes teams such as those noted then it takes away from the rest of the work.

I also don't agree with the idea of "did you do what you were suppose to do" against an opponent. This becomes extremely subjective and now were closing in to BCS type rankings.

The RPI is not a good measuring stick. Replace it with the ISR formula.

Arguing that the RPI is not a good measuring stick is a completly different issue from scheduling appropriately using the RPI. Which means as long as the RPI is going to be used we need to change a few things.

[Turbine]

IF Arizona had played those teams as you suggest then yes I would be less inclined to find them worthy of a #1 seed. A team should be judged on the body of their work and when it includes teams such as those noted then it takes away from the rest of the work.

I am saying take what you now know about AZ St. and insert those games at the end.

Their "body of work" should not diminish because of who they played at the end. Their body of work should be etched in stone, rather they should be judged on how well they played against the inferior competition.

jmo