110%er [3821]

TigerPulse: 82%

Posts: 4395

Joined: 2009

USuCk Nat'l Seed: BS scheduling and SEC propaganda

May 23, 2016, 12:01 AM

{This is intended to be informative, so it is long. Don’t read if you don’t care to be informed.}

Prior to last week’s games, the guys at D1 baseball had determined that they thought Vandy should be the last regional host, specifically beating out Clemson because “18 wins in the SEC was better than 16 wins in the ACC”. After last week, they’re pushing Clemson as a host now, but only at the expense of other ACC teams (NCSU or FSU). Seems they still feel the SEC was stronger at the top than the ACC. That got me to thinking about relative RPI in schedules, and some troubling conclusions about not only Vandy’s schedule, but also South Carolina’s.

After looking at the specific data, the illusion of the Coot baseball team as a given National seed simply blows my mind. It’s not that I don’t agree that they should be a National seed, but I don’t see why there isn’t more discussion about a team whose resume looks like it came from the Big South conference. This is especially frustrating due to that Clemson has what I would consider to be a very competitive, if not actually better, resume, but is only being discussed as at the fringe of hosting a sub-regional.

Here’s the facts:

In ACC play (and the ACC is currently the highest ranked RPI-conference), Clemson was 16-14, but outside of going 1-8 on the road against Top 25 teams, Clemson was 15-6. With the losses all being grouped together like this, we were actually 6-4 in ACC series: 2-4 against Top 25 teams (L - Louisville, Miami, Ga Tech, Duke; W - FSU, NCSU), and then 2-0 against both 26-50 (Wake, BC) and 51-100 (Notre Dame, Pittsburgh) RPI-grouped teams. That’s right: we lost no series, home or away to teams outside the RPI Top 25, and played no team outside the Top 100 in conference play.

Conversely, USuCk had a much higher winning percentage in SEC play, going 20-9. But several anomalies exist in their resume, such as being only 5-4 with a tie in conference series. Obviously the question is how did they have such a better conference record than Clemson – 4.5 games different – but still had less series wins?

First, USuCk went 1-2 in conference series play against Top 25 teams (W - Ole Miss; L- Vandy and aTm) and also split a series against #1 Florida in Columbia. They then lost their only series against a team in the 26-50 bracket (Georgia), before going 2-1 in series against 51-100 ranked teams (W – Tenn, Bama; L- Kentucky), and 2-0 against teams ranked 100+ in the RPI (Arkansas, Mizzou).

There’s a couple of notable things there, first being that USuCk was pretty good against Top 25 teams – 6 and 5, while we were only 6-12. But their series loss against Georgia is first notable because we lost no series to teams outside the Top 25, but also because we swept a home-and-home with UGA (and rather handily at that). Further, unlike Clemson, USuCk then lost another series against a 51-100 ranked team.

But the key here is the two series they played against 100+ RPI teams, which were both at Home and were both sweeps. That’s right: Clemson didn’t even have any games against competition slotted as low as 100+, while USuCk stuffed away 6 victories against these powder-puffs.

Now we see why USuCk’s 20 wins in the SEC didn’t necessarily translate to series wins, and isn’t really comparable in RPI-SOS to what Clemson did.

Further, just looking at averages, Clemson’s average RPI for ACC-competition was rated 31. USuCk’s average SEC-competition was rated 49. Unfair you say – they’re unnecessarily hurt by playing two series against 100+ rated teams. Fine – throw those out, and USuCk’s average SEC-competition RPI is still higher than Clemson’s at 34. That’s right; you can throw out USuCk’s lowest two rated opponents, and Clemson still played a higher rated-RPI conference schedule than did USuCk.

That’s how 16-14 may be just as good, if not slightly better, than 20-9.

What’s really incredible is the suspect nature of their total schedule: they’ve got 42 wins in 55 total games, but a full 26 of those wins – almost two-thirds - 62% - are against teams in the 101-200 and 200+ RPI brackets. By contrast, Clemson has 15 wins against 101+ RPI-competition out of 38 total – or only 39%.

That’s right, USuCk counts 11 extra victories in the 101+ RPI bracket, yet only had 4 more wins than Clemson for the entire year.

Ain’t hard to see how USuCk got to 40+ victories is it - scheduling the likes of IHOP and Home Depot on the softball circuit.

And note, that while the RPI is favorable generally to ACC teams, the Massey Composite is a little harsher. For instance, Clemson is 10 in the RPI but only 21 in the Massey; Duke drops from 23rd to 53, Wake drops from 26 to 51, and BC drops from 35 to 63. On the contrary the Composite is somewhat kinder to SEC schools, most notably Arkansas rising from 117 in the RPI to 91 in the Massey.

After all those changes Clemson’s average Massey-ACC-competition was 38. USuCk’s SEC-Massey-average was still lower at 48, but does rise to 34 if you ignore the two series against low-rated Arky and Mizzou.

Wow - you almost have to play mental-Twister to get favorable Coot-stats when comparing USuCk to Clemson.

And then there’s the obvious: Clemson not only swept UGA in a common opponent series that USuCk lost, Clemson also took 2 of 3 in the direct head-to-head with USuCk.

Something is truly a-fowl in Cootlumbia, and the chickens are getting an absolute pass from the Media for some very suspect scheduling on their way to a National Seed.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

there is absolutely a limited amount of relationship between the

Top 10 rankings by RPI and the National Seeds.

But just because you're top 10 RPI doesn't give you the seed.

AND THAT was my point.

Last year, Mizzou State was #9 RPI but got the 8th seed.

Likewise, Dallas Baptist was #3 in the RPI but got no National Seed. Ooooopsie....

Gettin' warm, Coot?.... Well it ought to be because

last year the #5 RPI team was aTm, and nope, they didn't get a National Seed either.

And even FSU was #8 in the RPI but got no National Seed in 2015.

Illinois was RPI 9th and got a National Seed; Louisville was 13th and got a National seed.

So go away Coot - your point is simply wrong.

My point is that the Coots may be #5 by RPI,

but you sure don't deserve a National Seed. And the data backs me up.....

Oh yeah, by the way, again, we did kick your ### 2 out of 3 again this year, don't forget

- lol

USuCk Nat'l Seed: BS scheduling and SEC propaganda

I believe our postseason will be better than the coots

Re: USuCk Nat'l Seed: BS scheduling and SEC propaganda

Re: USuCk Nat'l Seed: BS scheduling and SEC propaganda

Re: USuCk Nat'l Seed: BS scheduling and SEC propaganda

If only there were some head-to-head way to know who's better***

Re: If only there were some head-to-head way to know who's better***

Re: USuCk Nat'l Seed: BS scheduling and SEC propaganda

Re: USuCk Nat'l Seed: BS scheduling and SEC propaganda

Re: USuCk Nat'l Seed: BS scheduling and SEC propaganda

I gave you kudos on the one stat USuCk has in its favor...

Re: I gave you kudos on the one stat USuCk has in its favor...

I tHink that is the point he is trying to make

Re: I tHink that is the point he is trying to make

Re: I tHink that is the point he is trying to make

Re: I tHink that is the point he is trying to make

Wow that's a tough one

Re: Wow that's a tough one

as usual 09, you're just a few bricks short of logic....

No one cares about college baseball anyway

Re: as usual 09, you're just a few bricks short of logic....

Re: as usual 09, you're just a few bricks short of logic....

really, I think he came out the other side...***

Maybe if you took your head out of your a$$***

Cliff notes: Clemson played 10 more games vs Top50

Been that way since Tanner ran the program....

Ya, and their lack of talent became obvious once they got

TL:DCTBI

Re: USuCk Nat'l Seed: BS scheduling and SEC propaganda

TigerBoard POTD