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

[trojansc]

May 26, 2021 0:02:36 GMT -5 n00b said:

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

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.

Washington ALWAYS schedules very very tough. For example, their 2020 schedule had LSU, FSU, Alabama, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, UCF. Those are all T50 teams, many T25. They beat more of those teams than they lost to.

They usually spend the first month away from Seattle, smartly, and play a ton of good teams. The problem is, the big time tournaments they go to, were cancelled. This is where I disagreed with the defenders on the softball forum though -- Washington was victimized more than others, but most other T25 still managed to put together meaningful non-conference schedules. Washington's original 2021 schedule, which had plenty of top teams, was mangled and lost all of those top teams.

People thought that the committee should take that into account. I don't, unfortunately. You can only work with what has been played and if the RPI isn't really funky, which it wasn't, then you have to go with all that criteria. So, their non-conference performance just wasn't there. I do have zero doubt that Washington was put in a much tougher place than other teams, which is unfortunate. I think Michigan's situation is unfortunate too.

James Madison though, was completely disappointing. There were two T25 teams in their own state and they didn't manage to schedule them. JMU could have easily been T25, but they put together maybe the worst schedule among at-large/T50 RPI teams. Was some of this budget restrictions, sure, but I'm skeptical they couldn't get better names. JMU is a goldmine in RPI, they aren't a one-hit wonder this year.

[bbg95]

May 26, 2021 0:26:25 GMT -5 trojansc said:

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.

If you can't find it, then how can you know that your notes are accurate? I'm not saying that Kentucky's case over Washington was a slam dunk (though looking at the numbers that may or may not be accurate, I would give them the edge). But it's not "atrocious" either in my view. If you are able to find the actual nitty gritty sheets that the committee used, I'd be happy to take a look and possibly revise my assessment to some degree.

[trojansc]

May 26, 2021 0:36:20 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

If you can't find it, then how can you know that your notes are accurate? I'm not saying that Kentucky's case over Washington was a slam dunk (though looking at the numbers that may or may not be accurate, I would give them the edge). But it's not "atrocious" either in my view. If you are able to find the actual nitty gritty sheets that the committee used, I'd be happy to take a look and possibly revise my assessment to some degree.

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vTslH94ZnR5y8FSXG2OCSQ3jV2y6Zc5kRHY5wTaow66JZJBvtvglQgA_3I6qckFjAYjLNTMDTY6u6FL/pubhtml?gid=403049295&single=true

My notes weren't including everyone's single updated RPI and all of their profiles, otherwise I would share them, I mentioned it was an older spreadsheet that didn't have all selection RPI's and final criteria. They may not have even been 100% accurate as there were matches on Sunday before the selection show, but I already did a Bracketology after Saturday and *most* relevant matches were done.

However, the spreadsheet above ^ was accurate and I was basing my memory off that and the final NCAA RPI. I knew for sure Kentucky was 18, I don't remember every single spot. When the NCAA released their official RPI after all matches were completed,  I checked again, the spreadsheet was accurate yet again, D1 softball's site was not. This happened in volleyball too, as RichKern's RPI was inaccurate (I don't know if he fixed it, never used it again) and affected a Bracketology decision of mine one year. Figstats and bluepenquin coming around solved that problem (it's possible figstats was around back then and I just didn't know).

I did find this article, which does confirm Kentucky's final RPI was at 18 and 7-10 vs. T25 instead of the 17 and 8-12 vs. T25 as previously reported. Their 26-50 would be 7-3 at selection.

www.hookem.com/story/sports/softball/2021/05/19/texas-softball-oregon-wanted-own-regional-but-must-travel-austin/5158356001/

The only team outside the top 16 in RPI (17) and adjusted RPI (18) to receive a national seed, Kentucky benefited from a 14-13 record against top 50 teams, including 7-10 against the top 25

But, in Kentucky's favor, that article also mentions WKU finished T50 (who was their non-conference loss sub 50 in my notes, so that may also influenced my opinion that Washington was a better case by Kentucky and it made no sense to jump them especially with a better RPI). But it does make sense as WKU won its conference tournament, so its RPI squeezed them into T50 after being sub T50. And unfortunately, the spreadsheet doesn't list out the nitty gritty wins based on their actual accurate RPI. I really wish/wanted that D1 softball site to be accurate for the nitty gritty.

I still don't think Kentucky should have been over UW, but it is close I guess. Just doesn't make sense to jump them to me. I am interested in what you think about Texas' resume. They were 3-10 vs. T25 RPI. How do you view that? Enough to win the #12 overall seed? It's by far the worst. Everyone else had at least double the T25 wins.

Given softball's format, this is also why I commented previously that while Washington may have been under-seeded, just being a Top 16 seed and at home is the goal and why their draw wasn't *THAT* horrible. Oregon was the one who really got hurt by having to travel (and didn't make out of the Regionals). I argued that was worse of a draw. 

I'm also VERY disappointed the NCAA won't be using its original site for Team Sheets and Nitty-Gritty. What do they have to hide? It would certainly make things a lot easier. Unofficial RPI sites are not good, luckily we have figstats and blue for volleyball, which in the past ~5 years, have been spot on. None of my Bracketologies were based on 'faulty' information.

[trojansc]

Also, I just realized that spreadsheet I posted hasn't been re-sorted. You have to count the original spots instead of looking at adjusted RPI, you can see their RPI's are still as of selection time. (JMU 31, Minnesota 54, Washington 16, Kentucky 18, Auburn 27, WKU 47, etc.)

So, in summary

UW - Kentucky

RPI-16 > RPI-18
8-6 vs. Top 25 > 7-10 vs. Top 25
OOC < OOC #'s similar, no good wins, but UW had 2 worse losses (instead of 1 like I originally thought)
2-2 vs. 26-50 < 7-3 vs. 26-50

It's not that atrocious I guess, but I would be surprised to see someone argue that Kentucky was justified to get elevated all the way to *14* with that resume. I also think in a mostly similar situation, T25 wins against less opportunities + a better RPI would outweigh the other criteria, but I can at least respect it's debatable. The regional matchups wouldn't change whether or not UW/UK are 14/16. The Super Regional matchups would however, but some think Alabama should have been #1 as Oklahoma's OOC SOS was one of the worst of all time, so could have been OU#3/UW#14 and I still find that rational. So, that's why I was more *meh* at the time and concerned about getting the T16 is most important, regardless of the order, unless there is a gigantic discrepancy.

My question is, What brings Kentucky up so much to get #14? Arizona State was 4 spots better in RPI, was 8-9 vs. T25 and 5-2 vs. T50 and they actually had relevant non-conference wins against T50 competition, unlike Kentucky, which the committee did note was of importance to them. They dropped ASU and rose Kentucky. This also created a conference re-match in the Super Regionals (Alabama vs. Kentucky) which is annoying.

[bbg95]

May 26, 2021 1:37:08 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Also, I just realized that spreadsheet I posted hasn't been re-sorted. You have to count the original spots instead of looking at adjusted RPI, you can see their RPI's are still as of selection time. (JMU 31, Minnesota 54, Washington 16, Kentucky 18, Auburn 27, WKU 47, etc.)

So, in summary

UW - Kentucky

RPI-16 > RPI-18
8-6 vs. Top 25 > 7-10 vs. Top 25
OOC < OOC #'s similar, no good wins, but UW had 2 worse losses (instead of 1 like I originally thought)
2-2 vs. 26-50 < 7-3 vs. 26-50

It's not that atrocious I guess, but I would be surprised to see someone argue that Kentucky was justified to get elevated all the way to *14* with that resume. I also think in a mostly similar situation, T25 wins against less opportunities + a better RPI would outweigh the other criteria, but I can at least respect it's debatable. The regional matchups wouldn't change whether or not UW/UK are 14/16. The Super Regional matchups would however, but some think Alabama should have been #1 as Oklahoma's OOC SOS was one of the worst of all time, so could have been OU#3/UW#14 and I still find that rational. So, that's why I was more *meh* at the time and concerned about getting the T16 is most important, regardless of the order, unless there is a gigantic discrepancy.

My question is, What brings Kentucky up so much to get #14? Arizona State was 4 spots better in RPI, was 8-9 vs. T25 and 5-2 vs. T50 and they actually had relevant non-conference wins against T50 competition, unlike Kentucky, which the committee did note was of importance to them. They dropped ASU and rose Kentucky. This also created a conference re-match in the Super Regionals (Alabama vs. Kentucky) which is annoying.

Hmm, yeah, that is closer. I guess I don't think two spots in RPI and one additional T25 win outweigh the two worse losses and five fewer wins in the 26-50 range. But it certainly is debatable depending on what criteria you place the most emphasis on. Based on the numbers you posted for ASU, I would agree that they probably have a better case for the 14 above Kentucky, and avoiding a conference super regional would be nice, all things being equal. As for Texas in your other comment, it seems like the committee relied more on RPI in their case. It is annoying that they pick and choose when to stick to RPI, though, I agree. It does seem like their profile is fairly weak apart from the RPI. I agree that it is annoying we can't get the actual sheets.

[trojansc]

I guess I'll post this here:

I'm watching baseball now. C-USA UTSA-Louisiana Tech in the 11th inning and it's 11:10pm Local, and there's ANOTHER game scheduled after this (WKU and Southern Miss). I wonder if they will really start a college baseball game after midnight.

Southern Miss is actually in summer term now. If both teams had no classes, I could see a no-reason to not still play tonight. Announcers haven't announced whether they will play or not (and neither on Twitter)

(UPDATE: announcers say that the Tournament Officials say there is no midnight cut-off time for starting a game. The decision is now in the hands of the Western Kentucky and Southern Miss baseball coaching staffs)

[trojansc]

OK, i found the NCAA bylaw. Makes sense. Conference Championships are excepted from the rule about starting a game after midnight..

17.1.6.6.2.1 Exceptions. Countable athletically related activities may occur between midnight and 5 a.m. under the following circumstances:

(a) During participation in a conference championship or an NCAA championship;

(b) Participation in any competition that begins prior to midnight and concludes after midnight; or

(c) Participation in a promotional practice activity (e.g., first practice of the season).

[bbg95]

The super regionals have started. LSU and Florida State are locked in a scoreless pitcher's duel in the fourth inning.

[bbg95]

Florida State scored the first run of the game on a sacrifice fly. LSU's right fielder made a great throw to make the play at the plate closer than I thought it would be. Florida State now leads 1-0 with two outs in the top of the sixth.

[mikegarrison]

I was like, "WTF is that runner still doing on first base?" I suppose maybe she went half-way and didn't get back to tag up? Anyway, she later stole second.

And then the last batter of the inning -- I was expecting the bat to be shattered, until I remember they don't use wood bats. In the MLB that would have left the batter with just the handle in his hand.

[bbg95]

May 27, 2021 19:44:15 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

I was like, "WTF is that runner still doing on first base?" I suppose maybe she went half-way and didn't get back to tag up? Anyway, she later stole second.

Yeah, I thought the same thing. I think maybe she didn't want to risk getting thrown out at second before the run came across.

[mikegarrison]

May 27, 2021 19:48:50 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

May 27, 2021 19:44:15 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

I was like, "WTF is that runner still doing on first base?" I suppose maybe she went half-way and didn't get back to tag up? Anyway, she later stole second.

Yeah, I thought the same thing. I think maybe she didn't want to risk getting thrown out at second before the run came across.

That's why you watch to see if the ball is going to be cut off.

[bbg95]

May 27, 2021 19:51:10 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

May 27, 2021 19:48:50 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Yeah, I thought the same thing. I think maybe she didn't want to risk getting thrown out at second before the run came across.

That's why you watch to see if the ball is going to be cut off.

Sure. I'm not saying it was good baserunning.

[bbg95]

FSU wins 1-0 on a two-hit shutout. 

[mikegarrison]

May 27, 2021 20:03:39 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

FSU wins 1-0 on a two-hit shutout. 

LSU got the tying run on base with no outs, but she never got farther than 2nd base.