FWST: NCAA playing a shell game with college baseball seeds

[TCUExaminer]

QUOTE(KillerFrog InD KitchenSink @ Jun 2 2010, 02:13 PM) [snapback]567279[/snapback]
To use a system everyone basically admits is flawed, even as a minor factor, is kinda silly.


That sounds eerily familiar . . .

 

[PurpleBlood87]

QUOTE(FROGDADDY @ Jun 2 2010, 02:17 PM) [snapback]567284[/snapback]
[quote name='satis1103' date='Jun 2 2010, 09:03 AM' post='567079'
I don't see any reason why they would have done this. They've awarded Rice multiple super regionals in the past and they had the same issues you just mentioned. Ditto for Fullerton and Long Beach. We lost TWICE to AFA. FREAKING TWICE. The right to complain went out the window right there.

+1

 

[TopFrog]

QUOTE(FROGDADDY @ Jun 2 2010, 02:17 PM) [snapback]567284[/snapback]
We lost TWICE to AFA. FREAKING TWICE. The right to complain went out the window right there.

 

[AggieFrog]

QUOTE
Says the guy who thought A&M would be a No. 1 seed in UConn.

You need to drop the Frog from your name. Sorry you are an Aggie above all.

Gil's point was that maybe RPI isn't the only thing to judge a team on.

A&M was quite close to hosting that UConn regional (and ended the season 20th in the RPI even after a horrific slump mid-year). The NCAA has had a #2 seed host a regional quite often - this was not unusual.

As for being an Aggie first - I've never disputed that. Doesn't make me a 2nd class Frog fan, but it does give me a different perspective.

Personally, I like baseball and basketball's use of the RPI better than human polls because you lose much of the bias. Are there tweaks to the system that could make them better - yes and there always will be in any system. But at least you know how the numbers came about and how to improve and move up. And moving up doesn't depend on the name on your uniform - it's based on your results on the field of play. Isn't that exactly what we all complain about with the BcS?!

You can't play baseball in a conference like the MWC and not beat a bad conference team like Air Force and expect good things to happen at regional selection time. Win one more against Air Force and OU and TCU is a national seed. We didn't get it done and that's on this team, not the selection committee.

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

If they use "bad losses" as the reason for pushing us down, fine. If they point to the RPI as a reason for pushing someone down the ladder, that's where I think the system is wrong. You have a committee sitting there with their printouts and at the top of our profile is RPI:15, I don't care if it is a major criteria or not, it will influence the committee member looking at that profile. Take it off the page. Tell them you can't use the RPI as an excuse to push a team higher or lower. Look at last 10 games, good wins, road wins, bad losses, ranking systems that have been shown to avoid the regional bias, whatever.

 

[2314@work]

QUOTE(KillerFrog InD KitchenSink @ Jun 2 2010, 03:22 PM) [snapback]567327[/snapback]
If they use "bad losses" as the reason for pushing us down, fine. If they point to the RPI as a reason for pushing someone down the ladder, that's where I think the system is wrong. You have a committee sitting there with their printouts and at the top of our profile is RPI:15, I don't care if it is a major criteria or not, it will influence the committee member looking at that profile. Take it off the page. Tell them you can't use the RPI as an excuse to push a team higher or lower. Look at last 10 games, good wins, road wins, bad losses, ranking systems that have been shown to avoid the regional bias, whatever.

It's time to move on.
We all know TCU has no political clout in any circles. We just were served with another example.
Just win and close NCAA mouths.
End o' thread.

 

[NegativeNancy]

QUOTE(2314 @ Jun 2 2010, 03:27 PM) [snapback]567332[/snapback]
It's time to move on.
We all know TCU has no political clout in any circles. We just were served with another example.
Just win and close NCAA mouths.
End o' thread.



Ive got to agree with 2314. All we ask for in football is the chance to compete for a National Title. And here we get that chance. Lets just get out there and Take care of Businesass

 

[OmniscienceFrog]

QUOTE(AggieFrog @ Jun 2 2010, 10:42 AM) [snapback]567144[/snapback]
LeBreton sounds like he doesn't know much about college baseball


He's been a lifelong LSU fan. I'd guess he has as good an understanding of it as most people not in the process.


QUOTE(AggieFrog @ Jun 2 2010, 10:42 AM) [snapback]567144[/snapback]
- the polls have never meant much in regard to how regionals and national seeds are assigned. It's all about RPI and that's nothing new.


Perhaps he is suggesting it shouldn't be.

 

[Frogenstein]

Yall are missing the big picture. The real problem is not what formula is being used the problem is the selection committee themselves. It is headed by Tim Weiser from the Big 12 this year. I am sure he is completely impartial when it comes to selecting and seeding Big 12 teams. How hard would it be to hire a committee that has no professional ties to a school or conference? It might work for the basketball tourney as well.

And no, I am not saying Weiser denied a deserving TCU a national seed I just can't stand that they let conference officials and AD's on these supposedly impartial selection committees.

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

QUOTE(2314 @ Jun 2 2010, 03:27 PM) [snapback]567332[/snapback]
It's time to move on.
We all know TCU has no political clout in any circles. We just were served with another example.
Just win and close NCAA mouths.
End o' thread.


For me, I really don't have a problem with where we were seeded. I think it is reasonable to dock us for the AFA losses.

What I have an issue with is using the RPI as a crutch one way or the other. They've known for years it is flawed in baseball more than other sports, yet still use it. It works OK as a guide in basketball because there is more non conference overlap from region to region. In baseball not so much. Use some of the other systems that don't have the same regional bias.

 

[AggieFrog]

QUOTE(OmniscienceFrog @ Jun 2 2010, 02:36 PM) [snapback]567340[/snapback]
Perhaps he is suggesting it shouldn't be.

Because then it's a popularity contest like football - or are we choosing when we want to rely on humans and when we want to rely on on the field results?

Sorry, but the RPI is a great system. Perfect, no, but better than relying on the opinions of sportswriters/assistant ADs for a sport that's not televised nationally outside of a handful of games.

Everyone knows where they stand with regard to the RPI and followers of college baseball knew the consequences of losing to a team like AF when it happened. At least TCU is hosting - note that Vanderbilt with an RPI of 13 is not. TCU got a good seed, a fair regional, and is well placed to make a run - there's no need for complaining, IMO.

 

[monkeyfishfrog]

QUOTE(FrogsMcGee @ Jun 2 2010, 02:01 PM) [snapback]567271[/snapback]
The reward that a TCU gets for going on the road and winning 2/3 against Cal St Fullerton is not nearly what it should be.


I know what you're saying, but look at it this way. In Omaha, everyone's on the road. Our team knows how to go on the road and win. We win home, we win away. We've played in snow, we've played in wind, rain, 110 degrees, all over the place, and against all sorts of teams, including the best of the best (and we win, btw). When crunch time comes, I think that will pay off.

I could care less about home field advantage (other than for the fans), because I don't think these guys need it.

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

QUOTE(AggieFrog @ Jun 2 2010, 03:52 PM) [snapback]567351[/snapback]
Because then it's a popularity contest like football - or are we choosing when we want to rely on humans and when we want to rely on on the field results?

Sorry, but the RPI is a great system. Perfect, no, but better than relying on the opinions of sportswriters/assistant ADs for a sport that's not televised nationally outside of a handful of games.

Everyone knows where they stand with regard to the RPI and followers of college baseball knew the consequences of losing to a team like AF when it happened. At least TCU is hosting - note that Vanderbilt with an RPI of 13 is not. TCU got a good seed, a fair regional, and is well placed to make a run - there's no need for complaining, IMO.

I like having some sort of ranking, but why the RPI? Since it is known to be flawed, specifically hurting certain regions, why not use the ISR which doesn't have the inherent (albeit unitended) bias the RPI has in baseball? That's like having a thermometer you know is several degrees off, but use anyway. They should formally evaluate the various formulas and choose the best one (or ones) with the least inherent regional bias.

 

[TCUExaminer]

QUOTE(KillerFrog InD KitchenSink @ Jun 2 2010, 04:43 PM) [snapback]567370[/snapback]
I like having some sort of ranking, but why the RPI? Since it is known to be flawed, specifically hurting certain regions, why not use the ISR which doesn't have the inherent (albeit unitended) bias the RPI has in baseball? That's like having a thermometer you know is several degrees off, but use anyway. They should formally evaluate the various formulas and choose the best one (or ones) with the least inherent regional bias.


Better-yet . . . let's derive some formulas based on RPI and combine it with ISR. We'll then extrapolate those formulas and combine them with strength of schedule and the polls to make . . . the Baseball Combined Statistical formula, or BCS for short . . . wait . . .

 

[OmniscienceFrog]

One other thing RPI doesn't take into account, just like the RPI in basketball and all the ratings in football, is where a majority of a teams games are played.

In football the ratings don't reflect that quite a few teams play 7 or 8 games at home every year and sometimes one other at a neutral site. Same thing with basketball. There are some teams that rarely play true road games out of conference.

Comparing TCU's baseball schedule with the eight national seeds shows that TCU played 27 of 57 games (47.4%) at home. This is how it broke down for the eight national seeds:

Arizona St - 33 of 54 at home (61.1%).
Texas - 35 of 57 at home (61.4%).
Georgia Tech - 33 of 58 at home (56.9%).
Louisville - 33 of 60 at home (55.0%).
Virginia - 34 of 58 at home (58.6%).
UCLA - 33 of 56 at home (58.9%).
Coastal Carolina - 33 of 58 at home (56.9%).
Florida - 31 of 57 at home (54.4%).

In fact, of the top 25 in the WarrenNolan.com RPI, other than TCU only Connecticut with 23 of 61 at home (37.7%) had less than 50% of their games on their home field. (Correction! I found that Oklahoma also played just 28 of their 59 games at home, so make it three in the RPI top 25 with less than 50% of their games at home.)

When you factor neutral site games into the equation those top eight seeds, on average, played only 41.2% of their games on their opponents home field, while TCU played 59.4% true road games.

Anybody think that doesn't matter for a team with a .852 winning percentage on their home field and a .741 winning percentage away from home?

Figure TCU plays six more games at home and six less on the road, like the average national seed team does, and maintains the same home winning percentage. TCU's record then becomes more like 50-7, which makesa a big difference.