|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 8, 2022 9:06:48 GMT -8
The Pac-12's RPI is about what the Pac-12 finished at last year. The Pac-12 earned three host sites last year. It should be about the same this year. ...and the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that. The SEC *earned 7 host sites last year. They sent the same number of teams to Omaha as the Pac12. Difference being that somehow the 3 SEC teams that made it didn't have to play each other until the end of the tournament, as opposed to the 3 Pac12 teams that made it where Stanford and Arizona had to play each other in the first game. My point Wilky is that the RPI continues to turn out basically the exact same thing every year. The SEC and ACC are going to be at the top of the RPI. Meaning they will get more teams into the post season, and more host sites. Forever. Prove me wrong. The SEC has 14 schools, all of whom play baseball. The Pac-12 has 11 baseball-playing member institutions. That fact certainly has some effect on the relative number of tournament selections. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Mar 8, 2022 10:37:15 GMT -8
RPI is flawed. Anyone who disagrees must argue that it is a perfect measure. Negative sir. They just need to explain how an impartial rating system churns out the same results year after year. They need to explain how the ACC continually gets preferential treatment from said rating over all but one other conferences when there isn't historical data to support it. And, if it is flawed, are we not supposed to call it out? Here's what I don't get... Why defend the RPI? Flawed how? It is a mathematical calculation. Using it as one of the many metrics to rank teams? Why? Is it anymore flawed than the ever changing "opinions" of pollsters? The RPI system is what it is. There's no defending it. On the other hand why argue with a system that is consistent in it's calculations? It may be a crappy way to assess a team as 3/4 of the calculation is out of a team's control. But, for now it is used and is no worse than the current ranking systems that are generally interpretative opinion. On the EC it is far easier to schedule good teams to help your SOS. Without extensive travel it is a bit more difficult on the WC. So, I guess being on the WC is a flaw!? The RPI's strongest factor is the SOS (75%), which is based on your opponents winning % and the opponents opponents winning %. It's not like the system is some secret, play good teams that play good teams. And, truthfully the RPI really only comes into play for teams that are really on the bubble for advancing to the 64 team field. As far as seeding and the supposed conspiracy that the Pac12 is somehow screwed... it's just opinionated BS. Folks saying such nonsense have never been in the room to see/hear the discussion. There are many inputs that determine the brackets. The key, once in you have to win. No matter where you are placed. Only one team/conference wins it all no matter the "hype", RPI, polls during the season. If a team can't advance it wasn't the bracket, they weren't good enough. PS- "historical data" are not part of any calculation, hence no effect on such data. However, it is part of the human thought process. The disregard for such historical data makes sense as last season, the last 10 seasons, has zero bearing on the current teams and the results. But, in still happens as humans are involved and I think OSU was rewarded once (maybe, who knows) for that type of reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Mar 8, 2022 11:37:58 GMT -8
Negative sir. They just need to explain how an impartial rating system churns out the same results year after year. They need to explain how the ACC continually gets preferential treatment from said rating over all but one other conferences when there isn't historical data to support it. And, if it is flawed, are we not supposed to call it out? Here's what I don't get... Why defend the RPI? Flawed how? It is a mathematical calculation. Using it as one of the many metrics to rank teams? Why? Is it anymore flawed than the ever changing "opinions" of pollsters? The RPI system is what it is. There's no defending it. On the other hand why argue with a system that is consistent in it's calculations? It may be a crappy way to assess a team as 3/4 of the calculation is out of a team's control. But, for now it is used and is no worse than the current ranking systems that are generally interpretative opinion. On the EC it is far easier to schedule good teams to help your SOS. Without extensive travel it is a bit more difficult on the WC. So, I guess being on the WC is a flaw!? The RPI's strongest factor is the SOS (75%), which is based on your opponents winning % and the opponents opponents winning %. It's not like the system is some secret, play good teams that play good teams. And, truthfully the RPI really only comes into play for teams that are really on the bubble for advancing to the 64 team field. As far as seeding and the supposed conspiracy that the Pac12 is somehow screwed... it's just opinionated BS. Folks saying such nonsense have never been in the room to see/hear the discussion. There are many inputs that determine the brackets. The key, once in you have to win. No matter where you are placed. Only one team/conference wins it all no matter the "hype", RPI, polls during the season. If a team can't advance it wasn't the bracket, they weren't good enough. PS- "historical data" are not part of any calculation, hence no effect on such data. However, it is part of the human thought process. The disregard for such historical data makes sense as last season, the last 10 seasons, has zero bearing on the current teams and the results. But, in still happens as humans are involved and I think OSU was rewarded once (maybe, who knows) for that type of reasoning. It also really seems to make a difference if your conference rep on the selection committee has an axe to grind with you |
|
|
|
Post by beavheart on Mar 8, 2022 21:17:46 GMT -8
...and the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that. The SEC *earned 7 host sites last year. They sent the same number of teams to Omaha as the Pac12. Difference being that somehow the 3 SEC teams that made it didn't have to play each other until the end of the tournament, as opposed to the 3 Pac12 teams that made it where Stanford and Arizona had to play each other in the first game. My point Wilky is that the RPI continues to turn out basically the exact same thing every year. The SEC and ACC are going to be at the top of the RPI. Meaning they will get more teams into the post season, and more host sites. Forever. Prove me wrong. The SEC has 14 schools, all of whom play baseball. The Pac-12 has 11 baseball-playing member institutions. That fact certainly has some effect on the relative number of tournament selections. If adding 3 baseball schools to the Pac12 would mean that the conference regularly gets 9 or 10 teams in the post season, and no fewer than 6 host sites in most years don't you think we should get right on that? We have associate members in other sports. I nominate, Gonzaga Irvine Fullerton |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 8, 2022 21:38:23 GMT -8
The SEC has 14 schools, all of whom play baseball. The Pac-12 has 11 baseball-playing member institutions. That fact certainly has some effect on the relative number of tournament selections. If adding 3 baseball schools to the Pac12 would mean that the conference regularly gets 9 or 10 teams in the post season, and no fewer than 6 host sites in most years don't you think we should get right on that? We have associate members in other sports. I nominate, Gonzaga Irvine Fullerton Not my job. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Mar 8, 2022 23:36:31 GMT -8
The SEC has 14 schools, all of whom play baseball. The Pac-12 has 11 baseball-playing member institutions. That fact certainly has some effect on the relative number of tournament selections. If adding 3 baseball schools to the Pac12 would mean that the conference regularly gets 9 or 10 teams in the post season, and no fewer than 6 host sites in most years don't you think we should get right on that? We have associate members in other sports. I nominate, Gonzaga Irvine Fullerton Oh brother, so SEC and "regularly gets 9 or 10 teams in the post season, and no fewer than 6 host sites in most years" info in quick look: 2008... 9 in, 2 hosting 2009... 8 in, 3 hosting 2010... 8 in, 4 hosting 2011... 7 in, 3 hosting 2012... 8 in, 4 hosting 2013... 9 in, 4 hosting 2014... 10 in, 5 hosting 2015... 7 in, 4 hosting 2016... 7 in, 7 hosting 2017... 8 in, 4 hosting 2018... 10 in, 4 hosting 2019... 10 in, 6 hosting 2021... 9 in, 6 hosting Championship games since 2008, recent history: 2008... runner-up 2009... champion 2010... champion 2011... champion/runner-up 2012... runner-up 2013... runner-up 2014... champion 2015... runner-up 2016... 2017... champion/runner-up 2018... runner-up 2019... champion 2021... champion/runner-up So, quoted details not so accurate and history of results seem to favor SEC getting the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by beavheart on Mar 9, 2022 6:23:14 GMT -8
If adding 3 baseball schools to the Pac12 would mean that the conference regularly gets 9 or 10 teams in the post season, and no fewer than 6 host sites in most years don't you think we should get right on that? We have associate members in other sports. I nominate, Gonzaga Irvine Fullerton Oh brother, so SEC and "regularly gets 9 or 10 teams in the post season, and no fewer than 6 host sites in most years" info in quick look: 2008... 9 in, 2 hosting 2009... 8 in, 3 hosting 2010... 8 in, 4 hosting 2011... 7 in, 3 hosting 2012... 8 in, 4 hosting 2013... 9 in, 4 hosting 2014... 10 in, 5 hosting 2015... 7 in, 4 hosting 2016... 7 in, 7 hosting 2017... 8 in, 4 hosting 2018... 10 in, 4 hosting 2019... 10 in, 6 hosting 2021... 9 in, 6 hosting Championship games since 2008, recent history: 2008... runner-up 2009... champion 2010... champion 2011... champion/runner-up 2012... runner-up 2013... runner-up 2014... champion 2015... runner-up 2016... 2017... champion/runner-up 2018... runner-up 2019... champion 2021... champion/runner-up So, quoted details not so accurate and history of results seem to favor SEC getting the benefit of the doubt. So I'm not EXACTLY correct on how many they got in or hosted, but I'm not that far off. Big effing deal. You just refuse to understand what front loading the post season with SEC teams, with a bunch host sites does to the results. OF COURSE they are in it to the end. If they weren't, this would all be an even bigger affront to anything resembling fair or equitable. Tired of your act BAseba111s. Again. bye |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Mar 9, 2022 12:42:55 GMT -8
|
|
