[d4cohn]

I agree that this is not an issue of conspiracy, but rather an issue of the fact that all the breaks went against us.

Let's see... the committee decided to deviate from the RPI, but did so to move us down.  It would have been one thing if the committee stood pat on RPI, but it made the elective decision to downgrade us.  On what basis?  There was no other metric in which we performed worse than RPI.  Not any of the polls, not any of the other computer rankings.  Nothing.

But OK, maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it underseeded us by pairing us with someone who was overseeded in the super-regional.  Then at least it is acknowledgement that despite the underseeding, in terms of practical aspects, we would play one of the easier teams in the super regional.  But no, Mississippi state is also underseeded, and is probably better than the 6th seed it got.  By RPI, they are #4, for example, as they are by Massey rating.  So, the committee did no favors to Stanford (or Mississippi State either) by pairing two teams that were under-rated.

So maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it gave us a tough super-regional opponent both by underseeding us and underseeding our opponents.  Surely they will make up for it by giving us a clear path to the super-regional by pairing us with easier regional opponents.  But nope, the committee screwed us, again, by giving us a particularly difficult regional.

This was brutal.

BC

I definitely understand your point, but what about geography, which I also refer to. From my perspective, you can consider it from all of the "metric breaks" lining up against us as you said, or perhaps, the simpler explanation: Fresno State, Sac State and UCSB are all very close to PA, and the teams that can bus to Stanford all happen to be particularly strong, perhaps even more so than usual.

Regarding the super regional assignment, yeah, geography doesn't factor there. Our national seed number seems to be a by-product of our RPI number, and perhaps a weaker non-conference schedule (did we beat any tourney teams in non-conference play? I don't think we did, other than a Fresno State midweek). In softball at least, those are the two things a National seed can ill-afford, as a weak non-conference schedule, coupled with a lower RPI number, will get you downgraded like Alabama did in softball, leading our placement in the Gainesville Regional, as opposed to being sent to Tuscoloosa.

[d4cohn]

I agree that this is not an issue of conspiracy, but rather an issue of the fact that all the breaks went against us.

Let's see... the committee decided to deviate from the RPI, but did so to move us down.  It would have been one thing if the committee stood pat on RPI, but it made the elective decision to downgrade us.  On what basis?  There was no other metric in which we performed worse than RPI.  Not any of the polls, not any of the other computer rankings.  Nothing.

But OK, maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it underseeded us by pairing us with someone who was overseeded in the super-regional.  Then at least it is acknowledgement that despite the underseeding, in terms of practical aspects, we would play one of the easier teams in the super regional.  But no, Mississippi state is also underseeded, and is probably better than the 6th seed it got.  By RPI, they are #4, for example, as they are by Massey rating.  So, the committee did no favors to Stanford (or Mississippi State either) by pairing two teams that were under-rated.

So maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it gave us a tough super-regional opponent both by underseeding us and underseeding our opponents.  Surely they will make up for it by giving us a clear path to the super-regional by pairing us with easier regional opponents.  But nope, the committee screwed us, again, by giving us a particularly difficult regional.

This was brutal.

BC

I definitely understand your point, but what about geography, which I also refer to. From my perspective, you can consider it from all of the "metric breaks" lining up against us as you said, or perhaps, the simpler explanation: Fresno State, Sac State and UCSB are all very close to PA, and the teams that can bus to Stanford all happen to be particularly strong, perhaps even more so than usual.

Regarding the super regional assignment, yeah, geography doesn't factor there. Our national seed number seems to be a by-product of our RPI number, and perhaps a weaker non-conference schedule (did we beat any tourney teams in non-conference play? I don't think we did, other than a Fresno State midweek). In softball at least, those are the two things a National seed can ill-afford, as a weak non-conference schedule, coupled with a lower RPI number, will get you downgraded like Alabama did in softball, leading our placement in the Gainesville Regional, as opposed to being sent to Tuscoloosa.