Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Got a buddy coming down to the Triangle from Philly this weekend and my Tar Heel girlfriend's got a whole weekend of food and pregame activities ready. Time to vehemently cheer against OU.

 

Edited by texifornia
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Maybe it’s been covered but Auburn is the 4 seed? 
huh?

The rankings were a clown show. Vandy at 1 is probably the most ridiculous overseed. They were 3 at best. LSU got punished for a soft OOC schedule but they really are a top 4 team and putting them at 6 is stupid also. 

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Maybe it’s been covered but Auburn is the 4 seed? 
huh?

Every fucking year, the committee or the insiders say RPI will be a factor, but not THE factor, in seeding

top 4 seeds: Vandy, texas, arky, Auburn

Top 5 RPI: Vandy, Georgia, Auburn, Texas, arky

And as usual, it's pretty much a lie

Edited by Js1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

The rankings were a clown show. Vandy at 1 is probably the most ridiculous overseed. They were 3 at best. LSU got punished for a soft OOC schedule but they really are a top 4 team and putting them at 6 is stupid also. 

This was a weird grab bag of what have you done for me lately combined by resume matters.

Our draw into Omaha is a good one so I won’t bitch.

The lopsided nature of the bracket once in Omaha is kind of bunk…. But we have to get there first and there’s always some upsets that can tip the scales one way or another.

Hook’em!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Blotto said:

Not getting a ton of love from the betting public right about now (Draftkings odds) 

image.png.1de504e7ca0766a5208f17fca7f15bb9.png

I wouldn't bet on texas. I say 70% chance to omaha. 50% chance from there to go 2-2 but I don't see Texas making the finals.  Vandy would eat us alive I suspect.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

LSU got punished for a soft OOC schedule but they really are a top 4 team and putting them at 6 is stupid also. 

1 Vandy (RPI 1)
2 Texas (4)
3 Arky (5)
4 Auburn (3)
5 UNC (6)
6 LSU (10)
7 Georgia (2)
8 Oregon State (7)

LSU actually got a nice bump, everyone else in the top 8 had a top 8 RPI 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Js1 said:

1 Vandy (RPI 1)
2 Texas (4)
3 Arky (5)
4 Auburn (3)
5 UNC (6)
6 LSU (10)
7 Georgia (2)
8 Oregon State (7)

LSU actually got a nice bump, everyone else in the top 8 had a top 8 RPI 

Interesting. What exactly is RPI? How can Georgia possibly have been 2 for RPI. Seems like a very flawed metric considering teams literally cancel games against commuter schools because they would lose points even with a win. 

Posted
19 minutes ago, troph said:

I wouldn't bet on texas. I say 70% chance to omaha. 50% chance from there to go 2-2 but I don't see Texas making the finals.  Vandy would eat us alive I suspect.

Vandy got swept by Arkansas, they dont scare me. LSU in a championship series scares me because of their pitching duo, but fortunately we got them in group play. If we can beat Georgia/Ole miss, then we play the winner of Arkansas/LSU (assuming the seeding holds) and that gives us a golden opportunity to get to the finals if we can win that game. 

Posted
29 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Every fucking year, the committee or the insiders say RPI will be a factor, but not THE factor, in seeding

top 4 seeds: Vandy, texas, arky, Auburn

Top 5 RPI: Vandy, Georgia, Auburn, Texas, arky

And as usual, it's pretty much a lie

I think the presence of outliers does support the idea that RPI isn't everything.  Georgia at #2 RPI and #7 seed is a clue.  So is LSU at #10 RPI and #6 seed. 

If RPI were everything it would have been Vandy, UGA, Auburn, Texas, Arky, UNC, Oregon State and Coastal Carolina, in order.  The fact that the top 8 seeds are loaded with top 10 RPI teams doesn't scream "conspiracy" to me.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I don’t think there’s a conspiracy. I think the committee is lazy and just reverts to RPI (with some tweaks) instead of holistically looking at resumes

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

Interesting. What exactly is RPI? How can Georgia possibly have been 2 for RPI. Seems like a very flawed metric considering teams literally cancel games against commuter schools because they would lose points even with a win. 

Flawed absolutely.  As best I can tell, you lose 3-2 it is the same impact as losing 13-2 in 7 innings.

Vandy vs Texas in the SEC tourney.  We both played UTenn.  We got pitcher of the year Doyle.  They got a guy with a 5+ plus ERA, WHIP around 1.5 and a losing record.  Same impact in the RPI as best I can tell.

On and by the way two weeks earlier, Doyle went 7 shutout innings with 12 Ks.  No walks, 2 hits versus that same Vandy team.  Also we roughed up Crossland from OU more than Vandy did a mere week later.

The RPI and the SOS (again run differential has no significance) are the only metrics that Vandy has us beat.  And the tourney in which they faced the 3rd worst starters for OU and Tennessee.  The Ole Miss guy is not a starter and went 4 innings for his longest outing of the year.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

Vandy got swept by Arkansas, they dont scare me. LSU in a championship series scares me because of their pitching duo, but fortunately we got them in group play. If we can beat Georgia/Ole miss, then we play the winner of Arkansas/LSU (assuming the seeding holds) and that gives us a golden opportunity to get to the finals if we can win that game. 

timing is everything. we aren't mid season texas until we prove it on the field.

Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

1 Vandy (RPI 1)
2 Texas (4)
3 Arky (5)
4 Auburn (3)
5 UNC (6)
6 LSU (10)
7 Georgia (2)
8 Oregon State (7)

LSU actually got a nice bump, everyone else in the top 8 had a top 8 RPI 

The funny thing is I would take Auburn's spot today and twice on Sunday.  what a gift of a draw.   we got hosed on the side of the bracket we got for Omaha.

Posted
41 minutes ago, Hookem10 said:

Beating the 12-8-7- seeds in the sec tournament without facing an ace  must of done it. It just means more. Not the actual season. 

that's a fair point, but their pitching still showed up well.

Posted
27 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

The funny thing is I would take Auburn's spot today and twice on Sunday.  what a gift of a draw.   we got hosed on the side of the bracket we got for Omaha.

They are across from Florida, dont forget that. I think Florida takes them out. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Every fucking year, the committee or the insiders say RPI will be a factor, but not THE factor, in seeding

top 4 seeds: Vandy, texas, arky, Auburn

Top 5 RPI: Vandy, Georgia, Auburn, Texas, arky

And as usual, it's pretty much a lie

I think RPI sucks and has demonstrated biases, but I'd be happier if they seeded the whole tournament using nothing but RPI, rather than claiming that they don't rely on it that much.  

NCAA hockey tournament goes straight off their computer rankings, and their selection process almost never has any controversy. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I think RPI sucks and has demonstrated biases, but I'd be happier if they seeded the whole tournament using nothing but RPI, rather than claiming that they don't rely on it that much.  

NCAA hockey tournament goes straight off their computer rankings, and their selection process almost never has any controversy. 

I tend to agree.  at least it would be mostly transparent and I guess doesn't have a the "yeah but, how did they finish?" bias.  It would actually make the conf tournament games more valuable.

 

  • Drool 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I think RPI sucks and has demonstrated biases, but I'd be happier if they seeded the whole tournament using nothing but RPI, rather than claiming that they don't rely on it that much.  

NCAA hockey tournament goes straight off their computer rankings, and their selection process almost never has any controversy. 

I'm not defending RPI, but what are the demonstrated biases, and what alternative ranking systems do better?  I'm not fond of the human element.

Posted
38 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I think RPI sucks and has demonstrated biases, but I'd be happier if they seeded the whole tournament using nothing but RPI, rather than claiming that they don't rely on it that much.  

NCAA hockey tournament goes straight off their computer rankings, and their selection process almost never has any controversy. 

 

17 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I tend to agree.  at least it would be mostly transparent and I guess doesn't have a the "yeah but, how did they finish?" bias.  It would actually make the conf tournament games more valuable.

 

But if there's one thing the committee loves, it's that the seeding leads to conversation

a man on a treadmill says but it 's provocative no it 's not it 's gross

Posted
1 hour ago, dcar00 said:

The funny thing is I would take Auburn's spot today and twice on Sunday.  what a gift of a draw.   we got hosed on the side of the bracket we got for Omaha.

Eh, maybe so. But, this is Year 1. My expectations were very humble coming into the season. If we make it to Omaha, I'll be thrilled, even if we go 2-and-Q there.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not defending RPI, but what are the demonstrated biases, and what alternative ranking systems do better?  I'm not fond of the human element.

Boyd Nation (from old rec.sport.baseball.college) developed this thing called the ISR: http://www.boydsworld.com/baseball/isr/currentisr.html

IIRC, his criticism of the RPI is that it's biased if you don't have sufficient play across regions.  In areas where you have few teams (West), your rankings will tend to be pulled to the mean, while in areas where there are lots of teams (South), you don't have that problem, so the RPI tends to overrate Southern teams and underrate Western teams.   He once sent me a numerical example showing this, but I've long since lost it -- it might be on his boydsworld page.

He once told me that when Pat Murphy was at ASU, Murph paid for him to fly to the national coaches' conference and do a presentation on this and introduce ISR.  Boyd said that every other coach just sat there with their eyes glazed over and nothing came from it.  

 

Edited by Beau Vine
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Boyd Nation (from old rec.sport.baseball.college) developed this thing called the ISR: http://www.boydsworld.com/baseball/isr/currentisr.html

IIRC, his criticism of the RPI is that it's biased if you don't have sufficient inter-regional play.  In areas where you have few teams (West), your rankings will tend to be pulled to the mean, while in areas where there are lots of teams (South), you don't have that problem, so the RPI tends to overrate Southern teams and underrate Western teams. 

He once told me that when Pat Murphy was at ASU, Murph paid for him to fly to the national coaches' conference and do a presentation on this and introduce ISR.  Boyd said that every other coach just sat there with their eyes glazed over and nothing came from it.  

Yeah, now I remember Boyd & ISR.  I can totally see a statistical presentation going over like a lead balloon at a coaches' convention.  Regardless, if that bias is built into the RPI algorithm, we're faced with a likely majority of coaches not at all interested in change.

Posted
25 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not defending RPI, but what are the demonstrated biases, and what alternative ranking systems do better?  I'm not fond of the human element.

That is all very sound and logical, but the gators are the poster child of what have you done lately?  It is beyond question that we sucked in our first four SEC series to go  1-11.    It is also unquestioned that we won late season series against pig and the horns and the tide.  We won the series against FSU as well in non-conference play.

So you could say that our sucky start should keep us out of a regional bid, because computer ratings and a .500 conference record. 

But what if you had an undefeated team with three shutdown pitchers who were all injured in the same car accident, and were 0-14 their last games after?   Are we going to include them for an 0-2 BBQ bid because they had incredible potential at the start of the year?   I dunno man.   At some point, the body of work has to be tweaked by how good you are as you enter the tournament.

How one does that fairly? I have no earthly idea.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

That is all very sound and logical, but the gators are the poster child of what have you done lately?  It is beyond question that we sucked in our first four SEC series to go  1-11.    It is also unquestioned that we won late season series against pig and the horns and the tide.  We won the series against FSU as well in non-conference play.

So you could say that our sucky start should keep us out of a regional bid, because computer ratings and a .500 conference record. 

But what if you had an undefeated team with three shutdown pitchers who were all injured in the same car accident, and were 0-14 their last games after?   Are we going to include them for an 0-2 BBQ bid because they had incredible potential at the start of the year?   I dunno man.   At some point, the body of work has to be tweaked by how good you are as you enter the tournament.

How one does that fairly? I have no earthly idea.

That's a bigger problem if you're selecting the hockey field (16 teams).  But ASU got an at-large bid this season with the #49 RPI.  If you're not in the Top 50, even with some catastrophic injuries early, you're probably not that great in the first place.

Posted
22 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

That is all very sound and logical, but the gators are the poster child of what have you done lately?  It is beyond question that we sucked in our first four SEC series to go  1-11.    It is also unquestioned that we won late season series against pig and the horns and the tide.  We won the series against FSU as well in non-conference play.

So you could say that our sucky start should keep us out of a regional bid, because computer ratings and a .500 conference record. 

But what if you had an undefeated team with three shutdown pitchers who were all injured in the same car accident, and were 0-14 their last games after?   Are we going to include them for an 0-2 BBQ bid because they had incredible potential at the start of the year?   I dunno man.   At some point, the body of work has to be tweaked by how good you are as you enter the tournament.

How one does that fairly? I have no earthly idea.

 narrator - "they can't"

Posted
23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Not sure about baseball but the committee in basketball does account for injuries to major starters. Your example is a bit extreme 

yeah but what if florida's entire infield got caught in a meth lab sting 1 week before the tournament? huh? how bout that?

  • Haha 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

That is all very sound and logical, but the gators are the poster child of what have you done lately?  It is beyond question that we sucked in our first four SEC series to go  1-11.    It is also unquestioned that we won late season series against pig and the horns and the tide.  We won the series against FSU as well in non-conference play.

So you could say that our sucky start should keep us out of a regional bid, because computer ratings and a .500 conference record. 

But what if you had an undefeated team with three shutdown pitchers who were all injured in the same car accident, and were 0-14 their last games after?   Are we going to include them for an 0-2 BBQ bid because they had incredible potential at the start of the year?   I dunno man.   At some point, the body of work has to be tweaked by how good you are as you enter the tournament.

How one does that fairly? I have no earthly idea.

What if all 3 shutdown starters missed the season and the team went worse than Missouris season this year, they came back for the conference tournament and won it and got in as a 4 , then won it all. What a story that would be 

Posted
50 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Eh, maybe so. But, this is Year 1. My expectations were very humble coming into the season. If we make it to Omaha, I'll be thrilled, even if we go 2-and-Q there.

agree. they were make regional and good chance to host, but once Spencer got going(along with Ruger) my expectations were host super regional and see what happens.

Posted

Actually, I'm not fond of taking injuries into account.  It presumes that a team can't perform as well with the next guy up.  While this is quite predictable in some instances -- the Bulls couldn't win it all when Michael Jordan was dabbling in baseball -- I think it's more of a gray area in baseball and football.  Why should a team be penalized for a late season injury, anyway?  Where is the rationale for saying we want the top 64 teams RIGHT NOW instead of the top 64 teams over the course of the season?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Actually, I'm not fond of taking injuries into account.  It presumes that a team can't perform as well with the next guy up.  While this is quite predictable in some instances -- the Bulls couldn't win it all when Michael Jordan was dabbling in baseball -- I think it's more of a gray area in baseball and football.  Why should a team be penalized for a late season injury, anyway?  Where is the rationale for saying we want the top 64 teams RIGHT NOW instead of the top 64 teams over the course of the season?

basketball is a different animal for sure with only 5 players.  QB in football or a pitcher like Canady for tech in softball.

Posted
18 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

basketball is a different animal for sure with only 5 players.  QB in football or a pitcher like Canady for tech in softball.

Are there any pro sports that subjectively seed?  Tennis ranks players to determine tournament draws, but I think that's purely algorithmic.  Tie-breakers to determine playoff seeds in sports like football might seem silly in some cases, but at least any bias is cooked in and there isn't a room full of old guys throwing their opinions into the mix.

If the Chiefs win their division but lose Mahomes right before the playoffs they aren't going to get dropped into a wild card position.  Play on.

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Are there any pro sports that subjectively seed?

Well the pro sports playoffs traditionally didn't need this because they had decently balanced schedules. Traditionally college teams would be radically different with a very regional schedule so you can't just blindly seed by record.

Except, obviously, the 1927 Yankees had a big advantage over the rest of the American League by not having to play the 1927 Yankees.

Edited by Valmy77
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, texifornia said:

 

Houston Christian is certainly a weak #4 but not the weakest. But nothing weak about Kansas State and UTSA. 

I don't buy this, but also I have years of experience of tough mid week games against UTSA and hard fought series against K-State. Neither are going to be intimidated by Texas.

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

my opinion is that the answer is that there is no good answer

It depends on which lens you bring to the argument.  UTRGV and Southeastern Louisiana got rogered in the Southland Conference for Houston Christian.

I'm also having a hard time with my zealous assertion that Oklahoma and Kentucky should not have made the tournament (SEC or NCAA) with a losing record in conference.

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...