OK so this bracketology stuff has me confused...

[Brutius]

Now, I absolutely hate OleMiss, but to me....their team is getting screwed on all the bracket predictions. I really don't see how Ohio State or Oregon deserves to be in before OleMiss at this point. OSU has a 50 RPI and is 3-9 against the RPI top 50. Oregon has a 53 RPI and is 4-8 against the RPI top 50. OleMiss has a 43 RPI and is 5-4 against the RPI top 50. In the last 10 games, all 3 teams are either 5-5 or 6-4.

I guess looking at it from an objective point of view, I would personally pick OleMiss before I picked Ohio State or Oregon, but in all the bracket predictions OSU and Oregon are in the "last 4 in" while OleMiss is nowhere to be seen.

 

[Brutius]

Now, I absolutely hate OleMiss, but to me....their team is getting screwed on all the bracket predictions. I really don't see how Ohio State or Oregon deserves to be in before OleMiss at this point. OSU has a 50 RPI and is 3-9 against the RPI top 50. Oregon has a 53 RPI and is 4-8 against the RPI top 50. OleMiss has a 43 RPI and is 5-4 against the RPI top 50. In the last 10 games, all 3 teams are either 5-5 or 6-4.

I guess looking at it from an objective point of view, I would personally pick OleMiss before I picked Ohio State or Oregon, but in all the bracket predictions OSU and Oregon are in the "last 4 in" while OleMiss is nowhere to be seen.

 

[Brutius]

Now, I absolutely hate OleMiss, but to me....their team is getting screwed on all the bracket predictions. I really don't see how Ohio State or Oregon deserves to be in before OleMiss at this point. OSU has a 50 RPI and is 3-9 against the RPI top 50. Oregon has a 53 RPI and is 4-8 against the RPI top 50. OleMiss has a 43 RPI and is 5-4 against the RPI top 50. In the last 10 games, all 3 teams are either 5-5 or 6-4.

I guess looking at it from an objective point of view, I would personally pick OleMiss before I picked Ohio State or Oregon, but in all the bracket predictions OSU and Oregon are in the "last 4 in" while OleMiss is nowhere to be seen.

 

[Brutius]

Now, I absolutely hate OleMiss, but to me....their team is getting screwed on all the bracket predictions. I really don't see how Ohio State or Oregon deserves to be in before OleMiss at this point. OSU has a 50 RPI and is 3-9 against the RPI top 50. Oregon has a 53 RPI and is 4-8 against the RPI top 50. OleMiss has a 43 RPI and is 5-4 against the RPI top 50. In the last 10 games, all 3 teams are either 5-5 or 6-4.

I guess looking at it from an objective point of view, I would personally pick OleMiss before I picked Ohio State or Oregon, but in all the bracket predictions OSU and Oregon are in the "last 4 in" while OleMiss is nowhere to be seen.

 

[VegasDawg13]

Florida is ahead of them in the pecking order according to everything I've seen, and Florida hasn't done jack **** to be considered over the Rebels.

 

[patdog]

7-9 in a "down" conference isn't helping Mississippi at all. Neither is 5 losses to 100+ RPI teams.

 

[DowntownDawg]

...Oregon is 9-9 in 2nd best conference in the land this year, and OSU is 10-8 in the Big Ten, which is down, but is still considered a major conference. Florida is a bit of a mystery.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

The Rebels have the better RPI and record against Top 100, but their SOS is the worst of the three. Ole Miss has five bad losses to teams ranked outside the Top 100. The Rebels also have a losing conference record in the 4th best conference by RPI; Oregon is .500 in the 2nd best conference; and Ohio State has a winning record in the 6th best conference.

 

[Goat Holder]

I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt. They will have to play their way OUT of contention to get left out.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I mentioned this on Nafoom, and I'll mention it here as well. To me I don't think anyone can project a bracket. Conventional wisdom tells you that RPI, top 50 wins, and many other factors play in. And there is usually a pecking order to those stats, but when it comes selection time, the committee will always make a few selections that leave you scratching your head. For one team they use one criteria to justify a selection. For another they use other criteria. And the same for the teams they snub.

Our RPI, our record vs. Top 50, and our overall record say we should be in. Our conference record and our bad losses say we should be out. In the end it basically just depends on how we do in the conference tourney and then how the selection committee feels on that day. If they feel like valuing our record vs. Top 50 and our RPI more heavily, we'll be in. If they feel like citing our bad losses and our conference record, we'll be out. There is no way to project how they will handle any particular team.

 

[DowntownDawg]

That's definitely it, but they don't "deserve" anything other than what their team does on the court this year.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt. They will have to play their way OUT of contention to get left out.

</p>

And I think that is BS if that's the way it's handled. What you did last year or the year before should have no bearing on this year. That's the same as in football where you basically have to have one really good year before you can be given true national title chances, which makes no sense. All that should count is how you did this year. And I disagree with you about Florida. I think they are out unless they make a strong conference tourney run.

To be honest with you, I wouldn't be opposed to using some form of ranking system similar to the BCS for the selection of the tourney. Take Pomeroy's ratings, the RPI, and any other things you want to mix in, and come up with a formula. And just let that formula dictate the seeding and the selection of at large bids. At least that way you'd never have a discussion of snubs, because it would be clear cut.

 

[Goat Holder]

I think being the 2 time defending Champs are worth a look, all things being equal. And teams that haven't played are never equal so that doesn't matter anyway. Still a pretty damn good criteria.

 

[Goat Holder]

nm</p>

 

[DowntownDawg]

Those champs are gone, Buster. Just like Billy D said. Different year, different team.

 

[RebelBruiser]

And that's my point. Auburn was left out of the 2004 national title game because their 2003 team underachieved. That should have had no bearing on the 2004 season. And it shouldn't be that way in basketball either, though you're probably right that it will play a factor.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

Why should a past team's past achievements have any relevance to the accomplishments of the current team? There are no players of note left from those 2 NC teams. The accomplishments of this year's team put them on the bubble at most. Hypothetically speaking, that is liking saying MSU is deserving of being in the baseball tourney this year simply because they made it to the CWS last year. At this point, MSU is no where close to deserving. Likewise, at this point, Florida is not completely deserving (i.e. a lock).

 

[Goat Holder]

Go ahead and eat up that coachspeak. Donovan knows how the system works.

 

[patdog]

I've always thought the selection committee does whatever the hell it wants to and then comes up with the criteria after the fact to justify what they did.

 

[Goat Holder]

But when you have a group of bubble teams, all of them having some deserving and undeserving qualities, being a 2 time National Champ can sway the vote. Do I think it's right? Not entirely. But I think it should at least get them a serious look.

 

[DowntownDawg]

Oh, I agree that that's how the system works, but I don't agree that that's the way it should be.

 

[Brutius]

Oregon may be 9-9, but they beat the bad teams and lost to the good teams. The got beat by UCLA, USC and Washington STate twice, but beat Oregon State (0-18 conference record) and Washington (7-11 conference record) twice.</p>

Same thing with Ohio State, until the last two games (both at home) they had lost to every good big ten school while beating the really bad ones. Beating Northwestern twice (1-17 conference record) doesn't do anything for me.

Everyone says that the SEC is down, but there are no teams like Oregon state (0-18) or Northwestern (1-17) that EVERYONE beat. Even the "bad" teams could beat you if you didn't play well. I still think OleMiss deserves the bracket spot more than OSU or Oregon.</p>

 

[Columbus Dawg]

What about actually watching the teams play? My eyeball test tells me that OSU and Oregon are better than Ole Miss. You can't lose twice to Auburn and claim you deserve to be in.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

...#17 Stanford at home, and swept #29 Arizona. The question is what's going to be considered more worthy: Top 50 wins or losses to teams not in the Top 100.

 

[muddawgs33]

I also see where you are coming from. I don't think Florida should get in over another team that is more deserving just because they are the defending national champs. If it's Florida and another team with similiar resumes, then I think Florida should get it over the other team, so that they get the chance to defend it though. With that said, Florida better win at least 2, if not make it to the championship game, if they even want to have a chance to sniff the NCAA tourney this year. Their RPI is bad, SOS is terrible and they are 5-7 in their last 12 games. Right now Ole Miss should get the bid over Florida.

Hypothetically speaking, that is liking saying MSU is deserving of being in the baseball tourney this year simply because they made it to the CWS last year.

That's not even the same thing. If we won the college world series last year, then you would have a point, but ask Oregon St. if they appreciated getting the chance to defend their national title last year.

 

[Stormrider81]

You can't just leave out the 2 time champs in a battle of similar resumes. If Florida snuck in over a clearly more deserving team, that's a problem.

 

[Brutius]

OleMiss has more losses to 100+ schools because they played more of them. Their records arent very different when you look at percentages of wins/losses. OSU is .714, Oregon is .75, OleMiss is .642 against the rpi 101-200. Thats a difference of about 1 extra loss. OleMiss more than makes up for that in the top 50, where they are actually better than .500 while the other two teams are .333 and .250.

If I was an olemiss fan I would be pissed that those other teams are in the last four in while OleMiss isn't even in the "next four out". That's all I'm saying.

And don't even get me started on teams like Illinois State that are in the "last four in". Their team is 0-5 against the RPI top 50, has a loss to a 201+ RPI team as well.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Team W-L Pct
Ohio State 12-2 .857
Oregon 11-2 .846
Ole Miss 14-5 .737

...and that's why Ole Miss is behind Ohio State and Oregon.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Team W-L Pct

Ohio State 12-2 .857

Oregon 11-2 .846

Ole Miss 14-5 .737

...and that's why Ole Miss is behind Ohio State and Oregon.

</p>

And that's my problem with the selection process. It hasn't happened yet, but you can be better in multiple categories than one team, but they can choose to pick out one criteria and use it to justify one team over another.

Bottom line, if you're on the bubble, it's your own fault for not doing more, but I wish the selection committee would be more consistent. Sometimes they use RPI to justify a selection. Sometimes they use conference record. Sometimes they use Top 50 wins. Sometimes they use +100 losses. There is little consistency. For pretty much every bubble team you can use at least one criteria to argue Team 1 over Team 2 and then turn around and argue Team 2 over Team 1 using another criteria.

 

[Brutius]

out of many that OleMiss is behind them in. Why not list Winning Pct against the RPI top 100 or top 50? Because its bad for your side of the argument?

Against the top 50:

OleMiss .555
OSU .250
Oregon .333

Against the top 100:

OleMiss .777
OSU .411
Oregon .411

 

[patdog]

You can't just use records against top 50 teams and ignore everything else. Yes, Mississippi has more good wins. That's offset by the fact they have more bad losses. And you're argument that Mississippi has lost to more more bad teams because they played more bad teams than Oregon or Ohio St. only hurts your case that they should be in over those 2 schools. Strength of schedule is a factor and both Oregon and Ohio St. played much tougher schedules than Mississippi did. I don't give a **** how many 100+ RPI teams you played, you shouldn't have lost to 5 of them if you want to play in the NCAA tournament.</p>

 

[RebelBruiser]

I know this may sound homerish, but I think that for the purpose of the NCAA tourney your quality wins would be more important than your bad losses.

Reason being, when you get to the tourney, you're going to be playing quality opponents. And if you haven't proven you can play with quality opponents, I would think it would be tougher to justify putting that team in the bracket. That's my sheepiest justification for us, though I won't be complaining on Selection Sunday if we get left out. I still blame our team for being in this position in the first place. Win the two home games against USC and Auburn, and win one of the road games against LSU, Auburn, or Alabama, and we're playing for seeding this weekend instead of playing for a bid.

 

[Brutius]

that you guys are just being MSU homers and OleMiss haters in your arguments. The numbers do not add up. You harp on the one bad thing over and over and ignore any good things.</p>

Is MSU was in the same spot, 95% of the people on the board would be saying what I am saying....that they would be more deserving than Oregon or Ohio State.</p>

 

[Maroon Eagle]

SEC:
Overall Conf Overall Non-Conf
W-L W-L RPI SOS RPI SOS
East
Tennessee 27-3 14-2 1 1 1 3
Kentucky 18-11 12-4 48 12 204 89
Vanderbilt 25-6 10-6 10 34 5 91
Florida 21-10 8-8 65 87 82 275
South Carolina 13-17 5-11 139 35 177 163
Georgia 12-16 4-12 152 44 154 231

West
Mississippi St. 21-9 12-4 39 51 121 132
Arkansas 20-10 9-7 42 40 41 87
Mississippi 21-9 7-9 43 61 8 128
Louisiana St. 12-17 6-10 159 60 242 225
Alabama 16-15 5-11 118 54 85 124
Auburn 14-15 4-12 154 95 136 294

Big 10:
Overall Conf Overall Non-Conf
W-L W-L RPI SOS RPI SOS
Wisconsin 26-4 16-2 13 62 28 65
Purdue 24-7 15-3 36 109 157 256
Indiana 25-6 14-4 16 58 37 85
Michigan St. 24-7 12-6 15 50 7 46
Ohio St. 19-12 10-8 49 21 29 13
Minnesota 18-12 8-10 100 114 78 295
Penn St. 15-15 7-11 148 83 174 250
Iowa 13-18 6-12 184 90 241 266
Illinois 13-18 5-13 136 28 103 75
Michigan 9-21 5-13 181 23 173 17
Northwestern 7-21 1-17 215 65 168 237

Pac 10:
W-L W-L RPI SOS RPI SOS
UCLA 27-3 16-2 6 22 25 103
Stanford 24-6 13-5 17 76 58 296
Washington St. 23-7 11-7 20 45 15 202
Southern California 20-10 11-7 31 14 65 96
Oregon 18-12 9-9 53 30 68 162
Arizona St. 19-11 9-9 76 77 114 307
Arizona 17-13 8-10 29 2 6 7
Washington 16-15 7-11 107 49 147 224
California 15-14 6-12 94 32 67 180
Oregon St. 6-23 0-18 264 103 312 341

Everything looks kind of equal. right? Everybody in the middle of the pack... Well, let's have a little fun with the SEC. What if the conference standings were arranged like that of the Big 12 or ACC?

Let's have some fun with the way the conference looks and do a little rearranging, this is how the conference standings look in order of conference wins, tiebreakers, etc.:

SEC:
Overall Conf Overall Non-Conf
W-L W-L RPI SOS RPI SOS
Tennessee 27-3 14-2 1 1 1 3
Mississippi St. 21-9 12-4 39 51 121 132
Kentucky 18-11 12-4 48 12 204 89
Vanderbilt 25-6 10-6 10 34 5 91
Arkansas 20-10 9-7 42 40 41 87
Florida 21-10 8-8 65 87 82 275
Mississippi 21-9 7-9 43 61 8 128
Louisiana St. 12-17 6-10 159 60 242 225
South Carolina 13-17 5-11 139 35 177 163
Alabama 16-15 5-11 118 54 85 124
Georgia 12-16 4-12 152 44 154 231
Auburn 14-15 4-12 154 95 136 294

Ole Miss has the seventh-best conference record in the SEC at 7-9. They're behind a Florida team everyone says is not in the tournament. They've lost to the worst team in the SEC twice. Is that deserving of an NCAA bid? I say no.

 

[Brutius]

I have huge issues with. Basically your new argument is that non conference games are meaningless. Who cares that Kentucky went 6-7 with horrible losses, they did good in conference they should be in the tournament. Who cares that OleMiss beat (then) #15 Clemson, they were 7-9 in conference they don't deserve to go to the tournament.

I personally think OleMiss is more deserving than Arkansas, Illinois State, Oregon, and Ohio State.</p>

I think what we will see is OSU and Oregon losing their first game in the big ten tournament (against Michigan State and Washington State), and OleMiss winning 1 or 2 games in the SEC tournament. Then things will be even more in OleMiss favor.</p>

 

[patdog]

If you'll read my posts on this board, you'll find that the last thing I am is an MSU homer that doesn't give Mississippi credit when it's due. I'm one of the ones who said even last year when we went to the CWS that overall UM still has a better baseball program than we do.

How can you say that UM is more deserving than Arkansas? They played the exact same conference schedule. Arkansas finished with a winning record. UM finished with a losing record. Saying that UM deserves to be in over Arkansas is ********. At least with the others it's debatable because you don't have any good way to compare the teams directly. But with UM-Arkansas you do have a damn good way of comparing them directly. And Arkansas was clearly the better team through the duration of the SEC schedule.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

did it unintentionally

If we won the college world series last year, then you would have a point, but ask Oregon St. if they appreciated getting the chance to defend their national title last year.

Oregon St. got to defend their title last year because they earned the right to do so, not because they were champs the year prior. At this point, a reasonable and sound argument can be made that Florida has not earned the right to defend their title this year (just as a reasonable argument can be made that they should be in the field). We can come at from another angle since you are hung up on MSU not winning the CWS last year. Why was Florida not given the opportunity to defend their NC in football 2 seasons ago at the end of this year? I know you will make the argument that football at D1A is not a tourney format, but even in the tourney format, someone has to make the decision on who is included & who is not.

If it's Florida and another team with similiar resumes, then I think Florida should get it over the other team, so that they get the chance to defend it though.

I think this line of reasoning is utter horseshit. Why should a team that is full of players that basically had no part in the previous 2 NCs be rewarded for something they did not accomplish? Converserly, why should the other team be punished just because they are not the team that won the NC the last 2 years? The committee should completely toss out UF's last two years, in my opinion, and base their decision on which of the two teams is more deserving based on their accomplishments this season since making the tourney is supposed to be a reward for the season just played.

 

[Brutius]

I guess you are saying that the entire season doesn't matter and only the SEC records should determine who is better. The only thing Arkansas is better at OleMiss at is their conference record. OleMiss has a better overall record, they are basically dead even in all RPI categories. They split their head to head series.Arkansas had bad losses to 101+ teams just like OleMiss did. They are both 5-5 over the last 10 games. OleMiss has a better road/neutral court record.

I guess I don't get why Arkansas is "definitely in" but OleMiss isn't. I think it should come down to the SEC tournament between those two teams.

 

[Goat Holder]

who knows nothing about what happened in college baseball last year.

Oregon St. got to defend their title last year because they earned the right to do so, not because they were champs the year prior.

********. They were the last team in. Many experts said they shouldn't have been in at all, that they had sneaked in because.........you finish this sentence.

 

[patdog]

Yes. 9-7 is clearly better than 7-9 when you played the exact same schedule. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

"The only thing Arkansas is better at OleMiss at is their conference record." Not true. Arkansas has a tougher schedule, a higher RPI, fewer bad losses, and fewer home losses. Really, the only thing Mississippi has over Arkansas is 2 top 25 wins to Arkansas's 1, but is a neutral site win over #22 Clemson really all that more impressive than a road win over #35 Baylor? And they both have the same number of top 100 wins.