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

[mikegarrison]

May 30, 2021 14:31:43 GMT -5 trojansc said:

May 30, 2021 14:28:06 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Better to get Oklahoma in the WCWS than in the super regional or regional. This is already the best season in James Madison's history.

But this is why I hate the 'two separate bracket' and only a crossover in Winner's Bracket Friday thing from the WCWS. JMU will be stuck with Oklahoma unless the winner loses the Winner's Bracket match on Friday.

So? This is how tournaments work. Someone is "stuck with Oklahoma". Consider it an opportunity to show you can beat Oklahoma. If not for a fairly disastrous error, the UW might have beaten Oklahoma in the first game of their series.

[trojansc]

May 30, 2021 18:44:34 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

May 30, 2021 14:31:43 GMT -5 trojansc said:

But this is why I hate the 'two separate bracket' and only a crossover in Winner's Bracket Friday thing from the WCWS. JMU will be stuck with Oklahoma unless the winner loses the Winner's Bracket match on Friday.

Well, I'm not sure about the WCWS format itself, but I think James Madison already got a favorable draw for an unseeded team.

Their regional was one of the toughest with Liberty and Tennessee. It's true they did avoid the Top 5 seeds, of which 4 are in the WCWS, but their path wasn't a cakewalk to the WCWS.

My comment though, has less to do with JMU, but more the format of two separate brackets and the crossover principle.

[trojansc]

May 30, 2021 18:46:37 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

May 30, 2021 14:31:43 GMT -5 trojansc said:

But this is why I hate the 'two separate bracket' and only a crossover in Winner's Bracket Friday thing from the WCWS. JMU will be stuck with Oklahoma unless the winner loses the Winner's Bracket match on Friday.

So? This is how tournaments work. Someone is "stuck with Oklahoma". Consider it an opportunity to show you can beat Oklahoma. If not for a fairly disastrous error, the UW might have beaten Oklahoma in the first game of their series.

Not exactly in the format. The NCAA prevents losing and having to beat the same team twice in the same day in the Super Regionals, but doesn't do it in the WCWS. Two separate brackets is kind of weird with one crossover for the way the 'Elite 8' works in Softball. There is a way to prevent what I'm referring to. It's crossing over to the 'other' bracket when you lose, but in the current system, the crossover only happens after Winner's Bracket Friday. Not that I think JMU/Oklahoma are the two best teams in the country, but let's say they are. If they're paired up in the 1st match, the loser doesn't cross over and the same can matchup happen on Sunday, but this time the loser is forced to play again in the same day, unlike Super Regionals.

My biggest confusion is why they only crossover after Saturday's game. They should cross-over after each loss. For another example, let's say Alabama-UCLA is the Matchup on Friday, loser crosses over to Oklahoma. Yes, they can complain they too have to beat Oklahoma twice, but, they already lost a match to another team, so that would kind of be moot to the 'best two' point that I think a double crossover situation would benefit.

I mean, separate brackets happen in volleyball and other sports (though they aren't double-elimination) so I totally get the argument. If that was the case though, then why crossover at all? Why have the crossover at the Friday match, but not the Thursday matches? Doesn't make sense to me. 

[bbg95]

May 30, 2021 19:01:49 GMT -5 trojansc said:

May 30, 2021 18:44:34 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Well, I'm not sure about the WCWS format itself, but I think James Madison already got a favorable draw for an unseeded team.

Their regional was one of the toughest with Liberty and Tennessee. It's true they did avoid the Top 5 seeds, of which 4 are in the WCWS, but their path wasn't a cakewalk to the WCWS.

My comment though, has less to do with JMU, but more the format of two separate brackets and the crossover principle.

Sure, but as an unseeded team, they could have been sent anywhere, right? I see your point that they had a fairly tough regional in terms of having two other good teams, but I still would feel fortunate to dodge having to play a truly elite team until the WCWS.

[trojansc]

May 30, 2021 19:17:09 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

May 30, 2021 19:01:49 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Their regional was one of the toughest with Liberty and Tennessee. It's true they did avoid the Top 5 seeds, of which 4 are in the WCWS, but their path wasn't a cakewalk to the WCWS.

My comment though, has less to do with JMU, but more the format of two separate brackets and the crossover principle.

Sure, but as an unseeded team, they could have been sent anywhere, right? I see your point that they had a fairly tough regional in terms of having two other good teams, but I still would feel fortunate to dodge having to play a truly elite team until the WCWS.

That's certainly true. I'm not convinced Virginia Tech wouldn't be at the WCWS if they had a few different paths.

On another thought though in this particular scenario re: JMU, a little irony that Oklahoma has two losses and both of the teams they lost to are in this Bracket, which means Oklahoma could be in an elimination game with a team it lost to, OR in a winner's bracket game with a team they lost to, and a loss would cross them over anyways.

[mikegarrison]

My point it that most types of tournaments work as a funnel. They constantly squeeze teams together. Single-elim is an obvious case, but lots of tournament designs are similar.

For example, MLB. The wildcard teams have a one-game playoff. Then teams have a five-game series. Then a seven-game series. Then another seven-game series. In no case do losers get a chance to play another team. You have to beat the team you are matched up against or you don't advance.

There are other types of tournaments where winners play winners and losers play losers, and everybody plays in every round, but the only way to win the tournament is to never lose. So like you have eight teams. In the first round everyone is 0-0. In the second round the 1-0 teams play each other and the 0-1 teams play each other. By the third round you have two 2-0 teams, two teams that won then lost, two teams that lost then won, and two 0-2 teams. Those pairs play each other, and the final order of finish is assigned 1-8 based on the results of that final set of games. Ultimately it's single-elim, but with layers of consolation games so everybody gets to keep playing.

True double-elim allows teams to win the tournament even after a loss, which the WCWS does allow. But the format used by the WCWS does have the drawback that if the two best teams happen to get matched up in the first round, they can't both earn their way to the final series. I'm not sure why they choose to do it this way. Maybe they like the drama of rematches?

[trojansc]

May 30, 2021 21:19:11 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

My point it that most types of tournaments work as a funnel. They constantly squeeze teams together. Single-elim is an obvious case, but lots of tournament designs are similar.

For example, MLB. The wildcard teams have a one-game playoff. Then teams have a five-game series. Then a seven-game series. Then another seven-game series. In no case do losers get a chance to play another team. You have to beat the team you are matched up against or you don't advance.

There are other types of tournaments where winners play winners and losers play losers, and everybody plays in every round, but the only way to win the tournament is to never lose. So like you have eight teams. In the first round everyone is 0-0. In the second round the 1-0 teams play each other and the 0-1 teams play each other. By the third round you have two 2-0 teams, two teams that won then lost, two teams that lost then won, and two 0-2 teams. Those pairs play each other, and the final order of finish is assigned 1-8 based on the results of that final set of games. Ultimately it's single-elim, but with layers of consolation games so everybody gets to keep playing.

True double-elim allows teams to win the tournament even after a loss, which the WCWS does allow. But the format used by the WCWS does have the drawback that if the two best teams happen to get matched up in the first round, they can't both earn their way to the final series. I'm not sure why they choose to do it this way. Maybe they like the drama of rematches?

Don't get me started on MLB and NFL. I actually dislike how teams from the same division can't end up in the Super Bowl or World Series, for example. I know it might be slightly complicated Bracketing, but it can still be done in a way that makes sense. I don't know how many people would agree with me though, especially old schoolers.

Just a last detail, yes, the two teams matched up in the first round CAN end up meeting in the WCWS Final Series, but it requires the winner of that 1st round match to lose their next round match, because that team gets moved to the other bracket, so they can each win-out and meet eachother in the Finals. 

[trojansc]

The Mizzou Head coach actually came from the Colonial Athletic Association. She was overly-emotional in her press conference, always kinda sad to see. She was the HC at Hofstra, who has had quite some success for a mid-major program as well.

[mikegarrison]

May 31, 2021 4:24:25 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Just a last detail, yes, the two teams matched up in the first round CAN end up meeting in the WCWS Final Series, but it requires the winner of that 1st round match to lose their next round match, because that team gets moved to the other bracket, so they can each win-out and meet eachother in the Finals. 

Yeah, I suppose, but I specified "the two best teams". The classic single-elim conundrum is "What happens if the two best teams meet in the first round?" Somebody has to lose and get knocked out ASAP.

In the scenario you describe, both teams have lost within the first two games. It's unlikely that those are going to be the best two teams in the tournament, but I suppose it's possible. One of the two has to lose in the first round because they play each other, and maybe the other one just has an unusually bad-luck game in round two.

As for the MLB and NFL, I'm sure you are aware that historically the two halves of those leagues were competitor leagues, and so the championship was more of a championship between the two leagues than something like an NCAA tournament. But even in the NCAA, in large tournaments every conference gets an auto-bid, and that's a similar idea.

(The NFL and to a lesser extent the MLB have reshuffled teams from their original leagues to the other league, so the historical reasoning is less compelling. And now that the MLB has interleague play, the concept of the two different leagues is even less important than it was for most of the MLB history.)

[gobruins]

May 30, 2021 14:10:11 GMT -5 trojansc said:

May 30, 2021 13:50:16 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Eh, all five of those top eight seeds advanced to the super regional, two lost to other SEC teams, one lost to FSU, and the other one lost to a James Madison team that isn't really a "Cinderella," as they've been to two other super regionals since 2016. I think you're overstating the case a bit.

I'm actually in the middle. Well, first, the Big 2 isn't 2 for 2. Oklahoma State/Texas also gifted a Super Regional spot. The SEC lost a regional seed at home, the ACC lost a seeded team (though on the road) and the PAC-12 lost a seeded team at home too and was fortunate for it's #2 overall to get by Virginia Tech. I'm still in awe of Faraimo's performance. I think Virginia Tech is a great team though - so that's no knock re: PAC.

You are in awe of Faraimo's performance, but not Garcia's performance in Game 3?

Faraimo in Game 2: O runs, 1 hit, 2 walks, 11 strikeouts.

Garcia in Game 3: 0 runs, 2 hits, 0 walks, 13 strikeouts.

How can you say UCLA was "fortunate" to get past Va Tech? Sure, they stunk in Game 1, but they completely dominated Games 2 & 3. Va Tech never had a sniff of either game. In two games, Va Tech managed to get only one runner as far as 2nd base.

[trojansc]

May 31, 2021 7:28:01 GMT -5 gobruins said:

You are in awe of Faraimo's performance, but not Garcia's performance in Game 3?

Faraimo in Game 2: O runs, 1 hit, 2 walks, 11 strikeouts.

Garcia in Game 3: 0 runs, 2 hits, 0 walks, 13 strikeouts.

Faraimo's came after Virginia Tech lit Garcia up the game before, and VTech's offense had not been shut down all postseason. Nothing even close to that actually - and Virginia Tech wasn't even touching her. Tech had all the momentum coming into that match and it was a close game -- Rochard mostly held UCLA down again that game. It was very impressive re: Faraimo. Doesn't take anything away from G3 Garcia. I mean, one of those players is the 2x defending NPOY who got lit up in G1. I expected her to bounce back, and she did do it even better form than expected. I was just more in awe of a player coming in, who many people didn't expect to start, completely shutting down that red-hot team in a must-win game where that team had the mo.

To your edit - 'Fortunate' is respect for Vtech. UCLA was down to a must win situation in back-to-back games and yes, delivered. A 2-0 win is not dominant, except for the performance on the mound.

[jayj79]

The point of a championship tournament is not to ensure that "the two best teams" make the final, or that "the four best teams" make the semifinals or that "the 8 best teams" make the quarterfinals, etc. etc.

The point of a championship tournament is to name "the best team" (singular) as the champion. plain and simple.
of course, the definition of "best team" is up for debate, but for the purposes of tournaments is defined by a particular set of rules as to who wins which games (in single-elimination tourneys, it is whatever team makes it through the tournament without losing. in other formats, it gets more complicated)

[mikegarrison]

May 31, 2021 8:26:11 GMT -5 jayj79 said:

The point of a championship tournament is not to ensure that "the two best teams" make the final, or that "the four best teams" make the semifinals or that "the 8 best teams" make the quarterfinals, etc. etc.

The point of a championship tournament is to name "the best team" (singular) as the champion. plain and simple.
of course, the definition of "best team" is up for debate, but for the purposes of tournaments is defined by a particular set of rules as to who wins which games (in single-elimination tourneys, it is whatever team makes it through the tournament without losing. in other formats, it gets more complicated)

No. The point of a championship is not actually to find "the best team". It is to determine a champion. The champion does not have to be the best team, just the one that wins the championship.

But ... most tournaments do in fact try to have the best teams meet as late as possible. That's what seeding is for. Questions like "what happens if the best two teams meet in the first round" are valid questions when discussing the design of the tournament structure, and that's what we were discussing.

[jayj79]

May 31, 2021 8:36:52 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

But ... most tournaments do in fact try to have the best teams meet as late as possible. That's what seeding is for. Questions like "what happens if the best two teams meet in the first round" are valid questions when discussing the design of the tournament structure, and that's what we were discussing.

isn't the tournament bracket based on seeding? if so, then the top seeded teams aren't going to be "meeting in the first round".
if you're saying that the seeding is inaccurate, then the point is moot because there is never any real way to determine who the "best teams" are

[bbg95]

May 31, 2021 8:36:52 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

May 31, 2021 8:26:11 GMT -5 jayj79 said:

The point of a championship tournament is not to ensure that "the two best teams" make the final, or that "the four best teams" make the semifinals or that "the 8 best teams" make the quarterfinals, etc. etc.

The point of a championship tournament is to name "the best team" (singular) as the champion. plain and simple.
of course, the definition of "best team" is up for debate, but for the purposes of tournaments is defined by a particular set of rules as to who wins which games (in single-elimination tourneys, it is whatever team makes it through the tournament without losing. in other formats, it gets more complicated)

No. The point of a championship is not actually to find "the best team". It is to determine a champion. The champion does not have to be the best team, just the one that wins the championship.

But ... most tournaments do in fact try to have the best teams meet as late as possible. That's what seeding is for. Questions like "what happens if the best two teams meet in the first round" are valid questions when discussing the design of the tournament structure, and that's what we were discussing.

Well, generally speaking, most fans view the champion and the "best team" as one and the same. If you can't win the championship, you weren't really the best team, at least not when it mattered. The entire point of the regular season in most sports is to qualify for the playoffs and earn advantages (home field, byes, etc.) in the postseason. At any rate, the format of the WCWS does seem like it's designed to not match the two best teams in the first round. The No. 1 seed, Oklahoma, is set to play the winner of the super regional that if the seeding held, would have been between the No. 8 and No. 9 seeds. If they win, in the next round, they'd face the winner of the game between the two super regionals featuring the 4 and 5 seeds. Etc. The crossover thing and the double elimination make it more complicated than a standard single-elimination tournament, but it still seems designed to avoid such first-round matchups.