USA/NFCA Softball Poll is Out

[GoneGolfin]

_ Brian, the fact that the NCAA committee doesn't officially seed any teams other then no. #1 seeds is nothing more then a facade. One simply can look at the matchups and understand UL is #3 team seeded in the Austin Region and was the same last season in Baton Rouge. The criteria being being used amounts to nothing more then seeding teams 1through 4, they are simply not owning up to it.

I agree and said nothing to the contrary. I said they are "deemphaszing the label of seeds" by only declaring the #1 seeds. This drives the point home that the #1 seeds are earned on merit, while the remainder of the seeds are determined by a balance of merit and geography. As I stated, if you have a region of strong teams, because of the process that is used, you will have teams that are under-seeded on a national scale. For regions of weak teams, you will have teams that are over-seeded on a national scale.

If the Cajuns had the RPI and resume where they were a stronger #2 seed than Houston, they would have been the #2 seed ... though it does not matter much in this case. I exclude LSU from the discussion because they were going to get slotted to College Station (not Austin) due to geography.

But much more important than the #2/#3 seed designation is getting the schedule right such that the Cajuns can compete for a #1 seed and a potential host regional (if geography permits). I demonstrated how the Cajuns would have been in the running for a #1 seed with a smarter schedule. This should be incorporated into the scheduling process until the RPI is changed or is no more.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

_ In all honesty, does it really matter if we are considered a #2 or #3 seed? The net result is the same. We end up playing the same team. _

In baseball, it certainly does matter ... because your assumption in bold is not true.

In softball, it may not matter ... it depends on the regional sites for which you (and the other potential #2/#3 seeds) would be geographically qualified to participate. If there was only one such regional (and two possible teams for these slots), then it does not matter. If there was more than one regional and/or more than two possible teams, it may matter.

I think this year, it does not matter. Given the selected regional sites, it was either Austin (vs. Houston) or College Station (vs. LSU). Syracuse could have been slotted in either College Station or Austin ... but College Station was chosen to better balance that bracket (Syracuse has an RPI ranking of 26 ... LSU 25 ... while A&M is a bubble #1 seed). A strong #2 seed resume (stronger than Houston or LSU) would still have resulted in the Cajuns playing one of those teams. But again, #2/#3 would not have mattered.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

_ See my post below, the evidence is overwhelming in my book and the fact that other programs fall under the same scrutiny is irrevlevant because most of those programs are not from power conferences only furthering my argument. Results matter, process and criterion are only part of it. _

I have no idea what point you are attempting to make here. The bottom line is that if the Cajuns had the resume of a #1 seed, they would be a #1 seed. I demonstrated how a better schedule would have landed them in the discussion for a #1 seed. We need to schedule smarter. Period.

Brian

[CajunT]

_ I agree and said nothing to the contrary. I said they are "deemphaszing the label of seeds" by only declaring the #1 seeds. This drives the point home that the #1 seeds are earned on merit, while the remainder of the seeds are determined by a balance of merit and geography. As I stated, if you have a region of strong teams, because of the process that is used, you will have teams that are under-seeded on a national scale. For regions of weak teams, you will have teams that are over-seeded on a national scale.

If the Cajuns had the RPI and resume where they were a stronger #2 seed than Houston, they would have been the #2 seed ... though it does not matter much in this case. I exclude LSU from the discussion because they were going to get slotted to College Station (not Austin) due to geography.

But much more important than the #2/#3 seed designation is getting the schedule right such that the Cajuns can compete for a #1 seed. I demonstrated how the Cajuns would have been in the running for a #1 seed with a smarter schedule. This should be incorporated into the scheduling process until the RPI is changed or is no more.

Brian _

We agree that scheduling and winning is the only cure, but there have been awful large number of high RPI programs in the mid-west region on the past years. LOL!!

[RaginFan2]

_ In baseball, it certainly does matter ... because your assumption in bold is not true.

In softball, it may not matter ... it depends on the regional sites for which you (and the other potential #2/#3 seeds) would be geographically qualified to participate. If there was only one such regional (and two possible teams for these slots), then it does not matter. If there was more than one regional and/or more than two possible teams, it may matter.

I think this year, it does not matter. Given the selected regional sites, it was either Austin (vs. Houston) or College Station (vs. LSU). Syracuse could have been slotted in either College Station or Austin ... but College Station was chosen to better balance that bracket (Syracuse has an RPI ranking of 26 ... LSU 25 ... while A&M is a bubble #1 seed). A strong #2 seed resume (stronger than Houston or LSU) would still have resulted in the Cajuns playing one of those teams. But again, #2/#3 would not have mattered.

Brian _

Thanks, Brian! Yes, I was referring to softball, not baseball.

[J-Town Cajun]

Not that it really matters but you guys think UL is the #3 seed.

The way the bracket is laid out I believe UL is the #2 seed. If you look at each region, the team in each bracket that is placed the furthermost away from the national seed is the obvious #2 seed. UL is furthermost from Texas in it's bracket so I have to believe UL is the #2 seed.

[GoneGolfin]

_ Not that it really matters but you guys think UL is the #3 seed.

The way the bracket is laid out I believe UL is the #2 seed. If you look at each region, the team in each bracket that is placed the furthermost away from the national seed is the obvious #2 seed. UL is furthermost from Texas in it's bracket so I have to believe UL is the #2 seed. _

If you mean on this interactive bracket, UL is not furthermost from Texas in the regional box. The order is Texas, Texas State, La.-Lafayette, Houston.

Besides, this hypothesis does not make sense for several other regionals. For example, Illinois-Chicago is not the #2 seed in Louisville. Louisville is the #2 seeed. I also think that Long Beach State is the #2 seed in Tempe, not San Diego State. There is also a decent chance that UAB is the #2 seed in Athens, not Florida State. The Seminoles were likely one of the last few teams in the field. Finally, Nebraska is the #2 seed in the Stanford regional, not Fresno State.

Note that the Top 15 RPI teams were #1 seeds. Stanford is the only #1 seed not in the Top 16 RPI (at #19). The odd team out was Nebraska (at #16).

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

_ We agree that scheduling and winning is the only cure, but there have been awful large number of high RPI programs in the mid-west region on the past years. LOL!! _

This is the result from the emphasis on geography. Instead of a bias towards seeding the entire field in a national context, the bias is towards seeding in a regional context ... once the best at-large teams are selected to the field.

Brian

[J-Town Cajun]

_ If you mean on this interactive bracket, UL is not furthermost from Texas in the regional box. The order is Texas, Texas State, La.-Lafayette, Houston.

Besides, this hypothesis does not make sense for several other regionals. For example, Illinois-Chicago is not the #2 seed in Louisville. Louisville is the #2 seeed. I also think that Long Beach State is the #2 seed in Tempe, not San Diego State. There is also a decent chance that UAB is the #2 seed in Athens, not Florida State. The Seminoles were likely one of the last few teams in the field. Finally, Nebraska is the #2 seed in the Stanford regional, not Fresno State.

Note that the Top 15 RPI teams were #1 seeds. Stanford is the only #1 seed not in the Top 16 RPI (at #19). The odd team out was Nebraska (at #16).

Brian _

No it is the printable bracket not the interactive bracket. Now I can't find the link where I got it from but it is from the NCAA and it seems obvious that that the team furthermost away is the #2 seed.

[J-Town Cajun]

Brian go to the live interactive bracket then hit printable bracket or try this link:

http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/fi...allbracket.pdf

[sportsfanatic21]

_ Brian go to the live interactive bracket then hit printable bracket or try this link:

http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/fi...allbracket.pdf _

According to that bracket, it DOES look like we are the 2 seed.

[GoneGolfin]

_ No it is the printable bracket not the interactive bracket. Now I can't find the link where I got it from but it is from the NCAA and it seems obvious that that the team furthermost away is the #2 seed. _

Playing devil's advocate (looking at the printable bracket) ...

How do you explain Florida State (30-26, #49) being the #2 seed and UAB (38-17, #38) being the #3 seed in Athens, GA? I think that it is quite likely that Florida State does not make the field if they do not win the ACC automatic bid. There were several teams higher in the RPI that did not receive at-large bids, including #41 Illinois (27-22) and #42 North Carolina (34-21).

You can also make a strong case that Fordham (41-17, #37) is the #2 seed in the University Park, PA regional. Penn State (29-22, #47) had to be one of the last few teams in the field. If I am not mistaken, only one other team with a lower RPI was selected as an at-large (Memphis #48).

Brian