05-27-2019, 10:19 PM
(05-27-2019, 01:05 PM)d4cohn Wrote: I don't think a #11 seed is unreasonable, given our SOS, RPI and recent history as a Top #8 seed (yes, small sample sizes, but not even making to the if necessary game in successive years as first a #8 national seed, and then a #2 national seed, is a very poor showing).
If we make a super regional/CWS, that would be important validation of our status as an elite program in both the regular season and postseason.
Recent history is irrelevant. A large fraction of the team wasn't playing when we flamed out, and as you note this is a small sample anyways.
I agree with CTCard. A #10 seeding would have been reasonable, if the committee had chosen to follow RPI strictly. But RPI is the worst metric for Stanford, one that is biased against schools in the West, and that is a known flaw. Both polls and computer ratings have us better than 10th. So, my question for the committee, is if they felt it reasonable to deviate from RPI, how on God's green earth did they decide to downgrade us, and what was the justification for a team to leapfrog us in the rankings?
That was the unreasonable part.
BC