NCAA Softball Selection -- Does the committee love the B1G?

[trojansc]

111am local CT in Texas -- and it's heating up

T7th - Oregon down 1-0 but has runners on 1st and 3rd with nobody out

Oregon led off the inning and missed a HR by just inches off the top of the wall in right-center

[mikegarrison]

May 24, 2021 1:12:15 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Oregon down 1-0 but has runners on 1st and 3rd with nobody out

And yet, they fail to score. Texas moves on.

[trojansc]

Wow. Oregon gets a runner on 3rd with nobody out and can't convert. Texas advances to the Super Regionals.

Oregon just didn't have enough offense. They only scored 3 total runs in 2 games against Texas State, and 3 runs in G1 against Texas and 0 here in game 2. 6 total runs in 4 games over the entire regional against the #1 and #3 seeds (throwing out the result against #4 St. Francis) Not good enough.

That leaves the conference allotment for Super Regionals at:
7 SEC
3 PAC-12
3 BIG-12
2 ACC
1 last one... B1G-TEN? AAC? Nope.. the mighty Colonial Athletic Association

[trojansc]

If an unseeded team is to make the WCWS for the first time since 2012, it will have to be James Madison, Virginia Tech, or Georgia.

[c4ndlelight]

May 24, 2021 1:19:39 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Wow. Oregon gets a runner on 3rd with nobody out and can't convert. Texas advances to the Super Regionals.

Oregon just didn't have enough offense. They only scored 3 total runs in 2 games against Texas State, and 3 runs in G1 against Texas and 0 here in game 2. 6 total runs in 4 games over the entire regional against the #1 and #3 seeds (throwing out the result against #4 St. Francis) Not good enough.

[/b][/quote]

Bats going ice cold in the post-season must be the only influence Mike White still has on the team. Each team scored 3 runs in 15 innings today.

[mikegarrison]

I guess no matter which way UW/Michigan came out, it would be both evidence against and in favor of the idea that one of them was drastically underseeded. Of course, the other way to look at it is was that the #16 seed needed a miracle inning to even make it out of their home regional, so not underseeded?

I guess we'll see what happens in Norman OK.

I actually spent a week in Norman OK. I mainly remember that it was the first and only time I ever remember sleeping in a room with a prominent placard directing me what to do if a tornado warning was called.

[trojansc]

May 25, 2021 12:46:45 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

I guess no matter which way UW/Michigan came out, it would be both evidence against and in favor of the idea that one of them was drastically underseeded. Of course, the other way to look at it is was that the #16 seed needed a miracle inning to even make it out of their home regional, so not underseeded?

I guess we'll see what happens in Norman OK.

I actually spent a week in Norman OK. I mainly remember that it was the first and only time I ever remember sleeping in a room with a prominent placard directing me what to do if a tornado warning was called.

On a softball forum, some people were arguing that Washington's non-conference should have been taken with a grain of salt and that their scheduling was out of their control with specific travel restrictions. Other people had a rebuttal that pretty much every other top team, even some PAC teams, had relevant OOC wins. Washington also did travel to Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, but an insider or UW homer shared that it was logistically almost impossible to get good OOC play. What made matters worse though, was UW had 0 T50 OOC wins and had 1 loss worse than 50 and another loss worse than 100 in RPI for non-conference.

Now, Kentucky's OOC was atrocious too and Washington had better RPI. So, that's where I took a beef. Kentucky above UW was atrocious. But, I only think UW was slightly underseeded -- not a top 8 team like some were asking for (and I think what UW was expecting). A lot of people were bothered by UW being #2 PAC and being the 4th best seeded PAC team. I personally took no objection to that. Arizona State had a better RPI, was tied H2H with UW, and had better non-conference results. 

Michigan is a whole other can of worms. They didn't have an RPI in range and they had 0 Top 50 RPI wins because the Big Ten went conference only and nobody was T50 when Minnesota lost to the worst team in conference on the last day. I don't think Michigan and the Big Ten should have been rewarded for that unfortunate decision to play conference only. They were practically the only ones, the RPI mostly worked and pretty much everyone played non-conference. It was nothing like volleyball.

I don't really subscribe to the idea of how the performance affects seeding. Michigan could have won and beaten Oklahoma in the Super Regional and I wouldn't be convinced they should have been a seeded team. I just don't think they should go on any 'precedence', they didn't meet criteria to get seeded.

[mikegarrison]

May 25, 2021 16:27:13 GMT -5 trojansc said:

May 25, 2021 12:46:45 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

I guess no matter which way UW/Michigan came out, it would be both evidence against and in favor of the idea that one of them was drastically underseeded. Of course, the other way to look at it is was that the #16 seed needed a miracle inning to even make it out of their home regional, so not underseeded?

I guess we'll see what happens in Norman OK.

I actually spent a week in Norman OK. I mainly remember that it was the first and only time I ever remember sleeping in a room with a prominent placard directing me what to do if a tornado warning was called.

On a softball forum, some people were arguing that Washington's non-conference should have been taken with a grain of salt and that their scheduling was out of their control with specific travel restrictions. Other people had a rebuttal that pretty much every other top team, even some PAC teams, had relevant OOC wins. Washington also did travel to Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, but an insider or UW homer shared that it was logistically almost impossible to get good OOC play. What made matters worse though, was UW had 0 T50 OOC wins and had 1 loss worse than 50 and another loss worse than 100 in RPI for non-conference.

Now, Kentucky's OOC was atrocious too and Washington had better RPI. So, that's where I took a beef. Kentucky above UW was atrocious. But, I only think UW was slightly underseeded -- not a top 8 team like some were asking for (and I think what UW was expecting). A lot of people were bothered by UW being #2 PAC and being the 4th best seeded PAC team. I personally took no objection to that. Arizona State had a better RPI, was tied H2H with UW, and had better non-conference results. 

Michigan is a whole other can of worms. They didn't have an RPI in range and they had 0 Top 50 RPI wins because the Big Ten went conference only and nobody was T50 when Minnesota lost to the worst team in conference on the last day. I don't think Michigan and the Big Ten should have been rewarded for that unfortunate decision to play conference only. They were practically the only ones, the RPI mostly worked and pretty much everyone played non-conference. It was nothing like volleyball.

I don't really subscribe to the idea of how the performance affects seeding. Michigan could have won and beaten Oklahoma in the Super Regional and I wouldn't be convinced they should have been a seeded team. I just don't think they should go on any 'precedence', they didn't meet criteria to get seeded.

Whether it's volleyball or softball, I don't agree with this fetish for "out of conference RPI". It doesn't matter if you beat good teams that happen to be in your conference or you beat good teams that happen to be out of your conference. You still beat good teams.

The emphasis on OoC play is all political -- teams from lower-tier conferences want access to games versus the elite teams, and so the NCAA pushes this narrative that OoC play is somehow super important compared to conference play.

[bbg95]

May 25, 2021 17:41:43 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

May 25, 2021 16:27:13 GMT -5 trojansc said:

On a softball forum, some people were arguing that Washington's non-conference should have been taken with a grain of salt and that their scheduling was out of their control with specific travel restrictions. Other people had a rebuttal that pretty much every other top team, even some PAC teams, had relevant OOC wins. Washington also did travel to Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, but an insider or UW homer shared that it was logistically almost impossible to get good OOC play. What made matters worse though, was UW had 0 T50 OOC wins and had 1 loss worse than 50 and another loss worse than 100 in RPI for non-conference.

Now, Kentucky's OOC was atrocious too and Washington had better RPI. So, that's where I took a beef. Kentucky above UW was atrocious. But, I only think UW was slightly underseeded -- not a top 8 team like some were asking for (and I think what UW was expecting). A lot of people were bothered by UW being #2 PAC and being the 4th best seeded PAC team. I personally took no objection to that. Arizona State had a better RPI, was tied H2H with UW, and had better non-conference results. 

Michigan is a whole other can of worms. They didn't have an RPI in range and they had 0 Top 50 RPI wins because the Big Ten went conference only and nobody was T50 when Minnesota lost to the worst team in conference on the last day. I don't think Michigan and the Big Ten should have been rewarded for that unfortunate decision to play conference only. They were practically the only ones, the RPI mostly worked and pretty much everyone played non-conference. It was nothing like volleyball.

I don't really subscribe to the idea of how the performance affects seeding. Michigan could have won and beaten Oklahoma in the Super Regional and I wouldn't be convinced they should have been a seeded team. I just don't think they should go on any 'precedence', they didn't meet criteria to get seeded.

Whether it's volleyball or softball, I don't agree with this fetish for "out of conference RPI". It doesn't matter if you beat good teams that happen to be in your conference or you beat good teams that happen to be out of your conference. You still beat good teams.

The emphasis on OoC play is all political -- teams from lower-tier conferences want access to games versus the elite teams, and so the NCAA pushes this narrative that OoC play is somehow super important compared to conference play.

I think that's pretty easy for a fan of a big P5 school to say. I'm not sure the selection committee has always emphasized non-conference strength of schedule as much as they currently do. But if they don't, then some P5 schools (or even mid-majors--I remember that New Mexico got into the men's basketball tournament in 1999 with an RPI of 74 and a strength of schedule of 157, and on a related note, then-New Mexico athletic director Rudy Davalos just happened to be on the selection committee) are incentivized to schedule a bunch of cupcakes. And you don't have to schedule strong mid-majors. You can always schedule strong teams from other P5 conferences. Non-conference play in every sport is valuable in my opinion, as it challenges teams and helps to gauge relative conference strength. And everyone knows the criteria. If you don't schedule a respectable non-conference schedule, you may well be penalized.

[bbg95]

May 25, 2021 16:27:13 GMT -5 trojansc said:

May 25, 2021 12:46:45 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

I guess no matter which way UW/Michigan came out, it would be both evidence against and in favor of the idea that one of them was drastically underseeded. Of course, the other way to look at it is was that the #16 seed needed a miracle inning to even make it out of their home regional, so not underseeded?

I guess we'll see what happens in Norman OK.

I actually spent a week in Norman OK. I mainly remember that it was the first and only time I ever remember sleeping in a room with a prominent placard directing me what to do if a tornado warning was called.

On a softball forum, some people were arguing that Washington's non-conference should have been taken with a grain of salt and that their scheduling was out of their control with specific travel restrictions. Other people had a rebuttal that pretty much every other top team, even some PAC teams, had relevant OOC wins. Washington also did travel to Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, but an insider or UW homer shared that it was logistically almost impossible to get good OOC play. What made matters worse though, was UW had 0 T50 OOC wins and had 1 loss worse than 50 and another loss worse than 100 in RPI for non-conference.

Now, Kentucky's OOC was atrocious too and Washington had better RPI. So, that's where I took a beef. Kentucky above UW was atrocious. But, I only think UW was slightly underseeded -- not a top 8 team like some were asking for (and I think what UW was expecting). A lot of people were bothered by UW being #2 PAC and being the 4th best seeded PAC team. I personally took no objection to that. Arizona State had a better RPI, was tied H2H with UW, and had better non-conference results. 

Michigan is a whole other can of worms. They didn't have an RPI in range and they had 0 Top 50 RPI wins because the Big Ten went conference only and nobody was T50 when Minnesota lost to the worst team in conference on the last day. I don't think Michigan and the Big Ten should have been rewarded for that unfortunate decision to play conference only. They were practically the only ones, the RPI mostly worked and pretty much everyone played non-conference. It was nothing like volleyball.

I don't really subscribe to the idea of how the performance affects seeding. Michigan could have won and beaten Oklahoma in the Super Regional and I wouldn't be convinced they should have been a seeded team. I just don't think they should go on any 'precedence', they didn't meet criteria to get seeded.

Hmm, I don't know enough about softball to say for sure, but judging by the nitty gritty, Kentucky over Washington doesn't seem that bad to me. Washington's RPI was 16, one ahead of Kentucky. The Wildcats had a better non-conference RPI (24 to 28), though the Huskies had a better non-conference strength of schedule (159 to 168). But then looking at the breakdown of the wins and losses, I can see why Kentucky got the edge. They had the same number of top-25 wins that Washington had with eight each. But Kentucky was 6-1 against 26-50 teams compared to 2-2 for Washington. And they had zero losses outside the top 50, while Washington had two in the 51-100 range and one outside the top 100. This doesn't strike me as egregious.

[mikegarrison]

May 25, 2021 20:26:08 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

I think that's pretty easy for a fan of a big P5 school to say. I'm not sure the selection committee has always emphasized non-conference strength of schedule as much as they currently do. But if they don't, then some P5 schools are incentivized to schedule a bunch of cupcakes.

Just try getting other schools to come to Seattle, particularly if they are likely to lose. People talk about Washington "scheduling cupcakes", but there aren't a long list of teams desiring to fly out to what is generally the longest distance away that is still in the Lower 48. Which means Washington teams are pretty much always expected to travel on the road.

[nowhereman]

May 25, 2021 21:21:58 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

May 25, 2021 20:26:08 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

I think that's pretty easy for a fan of a big P5 school to say. I'm not sure the selection committee has always emphasized non-conference strength of schedule as much as they currently do. But if they don't, then some P5 schools are incentivized to schedule a bunch of cupcakes.

Just try getting other schools to come to Seattle, particularly if they are likely to lose. People talk about Washington "scheduling cupcakes", but there aren't a long list of teams desiring to fly out to what is generally the longest distance away that is still in the Lower 48. Which means Washington teams are pretty much always expected to travel on the road.

I agree on other schools not wanting to come to Seattle but the reason I respect UW softball even more than other husky programs is that historically they've been willing to play anyone anywhere. In fact I wouldn't mind if if they played no games at home until postseason.

[bbg95]

May 25, 2021 21:21:58 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

May 25, 2021 20:26:08 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

I think that's pretty easy for a fan of a big P5 school to say. I'm not sure the selection committee has always emphasized non-conference strength of schedule as much as they currently do. But if they don't, then some P5 schools are incentivized to schedule a bunch of cupcakes.

Just try getting other schools to come to Seattle, particularly if they are likely to lose. People talk about Washington "scheduling cupcakes", but there aren't a long list of teams desiring to fly out to what is generally the longest distance away that is still in the Lower 48. Which means Washington teams are pretty much always expected to travel on the road.

My point isn't really about Washington specifically. Just that I think the committee is not incorrect to emphasize non-conference strength of schedule.

[n00b]

May 25, 2021 21:21:58 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

May 25, 2021 20:26:08 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

I think that's pretty easy for a fan of a big P5 school to say. I'm not sure the selection committee has always emphasized non-conference strength of schedule as much as they currently do. But if they don't, then some P5 schools are incentivized to schedule a bunch of cupcakes.

Just try getting other schools to come to Seattle, particularly if they are likely to lose. People talk about Washington "scheduling cupcakes", but there aren't a long list of teams desiring to fly out to what is generally the longest distance away that is still in the Lower 48. Which means Washington teams are pretty much always expected to travel on the road.

I'm sure all of this is true. Then again, James Madison (#23 in the RPI) reported a $325k operating budget while Washington (#15) reported over $1 mil.

There is a lot of inequality in college sports. It is what it is and I don't think it should be considered when it comes to tourney selection and seeding.

[trojansc]

May 25, 2021 20:46:16 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Hmm, I don't know enough about softball to say for sure, but judging by the nitty gritty, Kentucky over Washington doesn't seem that bad to me. Washington's RPI was 16, one ahead of Kentucky. The Wildcats had a better non-conference RPI (24 to 28), though the Huskies had a better non-conference strength of schedule (159 to 168). But then looking at the breakdown of the wins and losses, I can see why Kentucky got the edge. They had the same number of top-25 wins that Washington had with eight each. But Kentucky was 6-1 against 26-50 teams compared to 2-2 for Washington. And they had zero losses outside the top 50, while Washington had two in the 51-100 range and one outside the top 100. This doesn't strike me as egregious.

If you're getting your info from d1softball.com/nitty-gritty/ , that wasn't accurate (even at selection time). Since the NCAA did away with their old system of publishing team sheets and selection criteria, I can't even find the RPI at the time, but I did have some notes in my old spreadsheet.

Washington had more T25 wins and a better win % against that criteria, and a better RPI. Kentucky was at 18. Auburn didn't finish T25. It might be trivial, but less T25 wins in more opportunities with a worse RPI and 0 T50 non-conference wins, that didn't make sense to elevate them to me? I also believe that Minnesota 100% outside T50 at Selection time (D1 has them at 50) I believe they were at 56. I also in my notes had Kentucky with a loss outside T50. I'll have to see if I can find anyone or anywhere that has a selection RPI.

It's very uncommon for the NCAA to update RPI until the entire postseason ends, but they clearly did. n00b posting that James Madison was at 23 is where I clearly knew it had been updated. They were in the 30's at selection time.