Bottom post of the previous page:
IF the committee did that, that is completely out of their mission and purpose. The committee should never speculate in that way.TropicalSooner wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:01 amYou know.....after sleeping on this....fallout from the selection committee....I still can't get my mind wrapped around their seeding. The only possible thing that in my wildest dreams I could come up with is that they put Bama at 5 and osu at 6 because they are rolling the dice that Fouts and Maxwell will come around and be the pitchers they once were in the beginning of the season, and the higher seedings maximizes their chance with "easier paths" than if they were seeded elsewhere. I guess they hope that Fouts' injury is not anywhere near as serious as it appears, and they can get a matchup between OU and Fouts to send Montana's career out with a top draw game. As far as osu.....perhaps they are thinking Maxwell somehow regains form and pitches lights-out and maybe even get that "Bedlam Final" that they should have gotten last year when the cowgirls threw it away.White River wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:00 pm To add to the Bama seeding mystery, Fouts may be unable to play due to injury. Bama's not even a top 25 team without her.
Beyond those two scenarios? Absolutely nothing else makes any sense at all.
I really think that the flawed RPI calculation makes it very tough on the committee along with the 400 mile rule. The RPI needs to punish teams more for losses IMO. For Bama to be a #5 seed with 18 losses and I think 9 losses to non-ranked teams, they are giving too much credit for top 10 wins. ALL Wins and Losses count. Not just a few of them.
IMO, Clemson w 19 losses, Bama with 18 losses, Arkansas 17 losses, LSU with 15 losses and OSU with 14 losses were seeded higher than they should have been. Losses by SEC teams to other SEC teams are not valued highly enough. The SEC benefits from that every year.
