We finished 4 spots higher than predicted vs 3 spots higher for unt and did better in the tournament
Herd Softball
- Thread starter bbneutralfan
- Start date
Interesting perspective there. I guess being picked to finish first and finishing second is more impressive, too?
UNT lucked out with their schedule. They didn’t play Marshall in the regular season.
Marshall did twice as better (8th to 4th) than predicted. UNT did four times as better than predicted (4th to 1st).
Want to see how illogical it is to "count spots" like your argument stated?
Pretend UNT was predicted to finish 12th but finished 10th. Pretend Marshall was predicted to finish 2nd but finished 1st. Should UNT's coach get coach of the year over Marshall's since they "finished 2 spots higher than predicted vs. 1 spot higher for Marshall"? See how foolish that is?
Well, let's look at your claim:
La Tech was predicted to finish 1st. They finished 2nd (tied for 1st and lost the tie-breaker) in the regular season. They then won the tournament.
Marshall was predicted to finish 8th. They finished 4th in the regular season and second in the tournament.
Now, you want to punish the team (coach) that won the tournament for having the best record during the regular season and fulfilling what they were predicted to do. Brilliant.
Jesus, can you be any more absurd and biased?
RPI:
UNT - 55
Marshall - 82
C-USA Record:
UNT - 19-5
Marshall - 17-7
So even though UNT had a far better RPI and had a better conference record, it was UNT that got lucky that they didn't have to play Marshall instead of Marshall being lucky that they didn't have to play the team that had the best record in the regular season?
But let's look at how even more foolish your comment was.
UNT's crossover games in the other division were against the #1, #3, and #4 teams in the other division (6 teams total in the division). Marshall's crossover games in the other division were against #1, #3, and #5 (6 teams in the division). So even in the crossover games, Marshall "lucked out" and had the easier schedule.
Oh, and the West as a far better conference than the East, so Marshall had the advantage even more by playing an easier slate in their own division let alone having easier crossover games.
But, yeah, UNT "lucked out" that they didn't have to play an inferior team. Stop.
I’m getting a whiff of something, just not sure what it is.
That’s just the stench of Durham you smell, since the city is a giant ghetto.
I don’t give a shit because it’s softball. I’m just arguing for the sake of arguing
you know, for a quick minute there, we were back in b-ball season! Great inaugural season for Coach
Megan Smith! Good things happening @ the Dot.....
Well hell, we all know UNT is next in line for the B12. Their fans will tell you that without asking.
There is further proof below, but I can simply type Marshall 2, North Texas 0 and really that ends your failed argument.
Marshall beat North Texas both times they played, simple as that. North Texas didn't score a run in either game. ZERO. Hard for UNT to make a superior claim based on that.
Marshall also won 2 of 3 from La. Tech. And the West was not better.
La. Tech went 3-0 in the tournament. The best team was in the West. They won 3 of the 5 games they played vs. Marshall this year (MU won the regular season series, 2-1, La. Tech won both tournament meetings).
The rest of the west?
UTSA beat USM (West vs. West)
Middle Tennessee beat UTEP (East 1, West 0)
Marshall beat UTSA (East 2, West 0)
Marshall beat North Texas (East 3, West 0)
North Texas beat Middle Tennessee (East 3, West 1)
Marshall beat North Texas (East 4, West 1)
I have no problems proclaiming La. Tech the class of the conference by a pretty narrow margin. (In 5 games, Marshall outscored them , 30-26... but La. Tech was the better team when it mattered). Beyond La. Tech the West really sucked it up in Birmingham.
Marshall is also still playing. I know NT earned an automatic invite to the NISC but must have declined. That's sad. Your kids deserved to get to play more. I hope it was their decision not to play.
Cole, you should get some sleep before school in the morning.
Really no more for me to say. This guy's own arguments are so flawed, they provided me a good laugh.
You really need to take a logic course. Your argument wants to throw out 55+ other games and only focus in on two. You realize how illogical that is, right? No? Well, here, let me help you.
The NBA has 30 teams. Out of 82 regular season games, the Milwaukee Bucks finished with the best record. They finished 1st out of 30 teams. The Phoenix Suns finished 29th out of 30 teams. There was only one team worse than Phoenix this season in the entire NBA.
The Milwaukee Bucks (#1 record in the entire NBA) played the Phoenix Suns (#29 record out of 30 in the entire NBA) twice this season. Phoenix (#29) beat Milwaukee (#1) both times.
Your logic dictates that Phoenix is the better team. Do you know the definition of "absolutely, fvcking stupid"? It's absolutely fvcking stupid to throw out 55+ games and base your argument on just two. Yet, that's what you're attempting to do.
This one is even more baffling for you to present.
The West went 37-25 against the East this year. That record includes both regular season and post-season games. Again, 37-25. That means the West won about 2 out of every 3 games against the East. Yet you claim the West was not better? It's not even close.
How about RPI? Well, when you average the RPI for each team in each division, the West wins again. How about taking out the best and worst team in each division? Yep, the West wins again.
No matter how you look at it - using logic, which is your downfall - the West comes out on top.
This is illogical in multiple ways. First, you want to discard the 50+ games between the divisions and only focus on six games. Then, you want to throw out the games which involved Louisiana Tech. Finally, you want to look at only games that were played in the tournament EXCLUDING Louisiana Tech, which excludes multiple teams from each division that weren't even in the tournament.
This argument is similar (but even dumber) than the people who want to rank football conference strength based only on the results of bowl games.
In the tournament, the record was 4-4 between West vs. East. Of course, that is just a small fraction of all of the games played between the two divisions and doesn't even include all of the teams. As I said, the overall record between the two divisions for both the regular season and tournament was 37-25 in favor of the West. It's not even close.
Show me a single logical argument that the West was not better than the East.
For you to have the audacity to say that my arguments are flawed after what was just revealed of yours makes you the biggest goddamn moron on this board.
Your argument is flawed. There was only a 2 game difference in conference records between MU and your beloved NT and then MU beat them twice. Also, RPI is a BS statistic since teams get rewarded for losing to good teams. Go away, your team lost to MU twice and isn't nearly as good as you think. La Tech beat us twice and deserve to be considered the best team in CUSA. Also, despite their coaches looking like they were dragged away from hunting gators in the bayou, their HC and staff earned the COTY Award.
How does that make the genius’ argument flawed?
Nothing the genius said is refuted by what you just posted. You say things like “Your argument is flawed” and then support that comment with nothing that refutes or shows a flaw in the genius’ argument.
Again, how is the genius’ argument flawed by the info that you presented?
You spent a long time to come to a conclusion that you completely throw away with your last sentence. I do applaud the effort. It takes forever to come up with some of those numbers.
UNT had a good year. Nothing wrong with it whatsoever. They just were not quite as good as Marshall was this season. Birmingham proved that. Marshall likely would have went 2-1 or 3-0 against UNT had they played in the regular season. Throwing out the two biggest games of your season is simply flawed.
And why are we arguing anyway? Louisiana Tech won the games that mattered most.
You'll have to explain that. My argument is consistent throughout this thread and all of the others in which similar discussions are had. My last sentence does nothing to throw anything away.
For somebody of your intellect, it probably would take a long time. For those of us who don't have double-digit IQs, it took five minutes. The C-USA website has a softball schedule. You simply click the drop down list to look at each team's schedule. They even have conference games marked with an asterisk to make it easier to notice. Knowing which teams are in the West and East, it took less than a minute to look at each team's schedule and see their record against the other division. Since the games were played against each other, you only have to look at teams from one division in order to get the record, so a total of six teams. Again, five minutes for those of us who aren't morons.
Again, you're relying on the argument that the Phoenix Suns were better than the Milwaukee Bucks this season due to the Suns beating them in both games. You're discarding a huge sample in order to look at just a small sample. Brilliant.
Why are you fabricating sh!t? I'm the one arguing to include ALL games, both regular season and tournament. You're the one wanting to simply look at two games out of 55+. When you look at all games, UNT is superior to Marshall. Beating a team 1-0 twice and refusing to acknowledge the other 55+ games is absurdly stupid.
Uhh, UNT's coach won the same award, moron.
You spent 10 minutes alone writing the post.
In my world, 5 minutes is absolutely forever.
Oh yeah, and simply put? Scoreboard. Write me back when UNT can put something other than 0 on it against the Herd.
Good season, though. Oh yeah, and your coach split the award, so the La. Tech coach had equal claim. DeLong did a good job this year. Not as good as our coach, but good nonetheless.
You can argue all you wish. Marshall won both meetings. You can’t dispute that. It’s clearly burning you up inside.
It makes a lot of sense now. After comparing the "Colemag" posts to those of all your profiles it appears that you have a new profile named "Colemag" so that you can have another profile that will agree with you. We only played UNT when it mattered and won both games and that disputes the argument that they were much better than us. La Tech was the best team period.
Go F yourself dickhead! I didn't call you any names I'm simply disagree with you argument. Also, I am saying Tech's coaches deserved the award and that UNT's didn't deserve it.
Moron, I am a Marshall fan. I want Marshall to win. Thank god fans of other teams aren't on here to see how foolish your attempts at logic are.
UNT was better than Marshall. Their RPI was substantially better. Their conference record was better. The only thing you can hang your hat on is two 1-0 games. But as I showed you with the Suns/Bucks example, looking at a very small number of head-to-head games instead of the much bigger picture is absurdly stupid. And that makes your one and only argument absurdly stupid.
I'm glad you have abandoned your other foolish arguments that were easily shot down. Tell us again how the West wasn't better than the East without any type of argument to back it up.
Uhh, the regular season matters, too. Just ask Charlotte how they did in the tournament if you don't think the regular season matters. It doesn't matter when Marshall had played UNT - regular or tournament - they all matter.
And again, you're trying to use the head-to-head is the only thing that matters argument. That's foolish. To staying intellectually honest with your arguments, that means you believe the Bucks aren't better than the Suns. Absurd.
You've called me plenty of names previously.
But that's not what you said.
The East was better. WKU losing to Middle was the only reason UNT won any games in Birmingham.
Sleep well, child.
Sleep well, child.
Also, had a minute to double check your West-East record. The West was 32-22 in the regular season. If you count the tournament: West was 36-26. Marshall did not play UTEP or North Texas in the regular season. Charlotte was basically the difference... they went 1-8 against the West.
The West's worst team, UAB, was better than Charlotte. The West's best team, Louisiana Tech, was better than everyone in the league. So let's accept that as fact and look at how the teams in between stack up:
NT, USM, UTEP and UTSA in comparison to Marshall, Middle Tennessee, FIU and FAU. I've taken out La. Tech, UAB, Western Kentucky and Charlotte to compare the "middle" of the league.
Counting the tournament, NT was 7-5, USM was 3-6, UTEP was 7-3, and UTSA was 3-7. That is a total of 20-21 for the West.
Marshall was 9-5, MTSU was 5-7, FIU was 3-6, FAU was 3-6. That is a total of 20-24 vs. the West. Odd numbers, right?
Home/away split shows that La. Tech was 6-0 vs. the East at home, 1-2 on the road, 3-0 at neutral site. NT was 2-1 at home, 4-2 on the road (very nice), 1-2 neutral, USM was 2-4 at home, 1-2 on the road. UTEP was 7-2 against the East... all of those games were at home (which that team in particular has a significant home advantage over the East due to travel... heck, it's significant to the West teams, too, and they were 0-1 neutral. UTSA was 2-1 at home, 1-5 on the road, 0-1 neutral. UAB didn't have any home games vs. the East. They went 6-3, all on the road.
So the West vs. East was 19-8 at home, 13-13 on the road, and 4-4 neutral. Removing La. Tech and UAB, who we established as better than their East counterparts, the record comes out 13-8 at home, 6-8 on the road, and 1-4 neutral.
Statistically speaking, the differential between sides of the league is not significant. The fact is, you can't get a true measure because the teams do not all play each other. Every statistic involved is going to be skewed by that fact. Marshall did not play NT, UTEP, or UAB. WKU didn't play UAB, USM, or UTEP.
Because of this, the top 2 East teams did not even play the worst West team or the 4th place west team. That's 12 games that would be added to this equation and, playing it safe, that's probably the East going an additional 8-4. And really, I'm thinking Marshall and WKU each would take 2 of 3 from the West teams they did not play.
Marshall beat North Texas both times they played. UNT couldn't score in 14 innings against the Herd.
The end.
The West's worst team, UAB, was better than Charlotte. The West's best team, Louisiana Tech, was better than everyone in the league. So let's accept that as fact and look at how the teams in between stack up:
NT, USM, UTEP and UTSA in comparison to Marshall, Middle Tennessee, FIU and FAU. I've taken out La. Tech, UAB, Western Kentucky and Charlotte to compare the "middle" of the league.
Counting the tournament, NT was 7-5, USM was 3-6, UTEP was 7-3, and UTSA was 3-7. That is a total of 20-21 for the West.
Marshall was 9-5, MTSU was 5-7, FIU was 3-6, FAU was 3-6. That is a total of 20-24 vs. the West. Odd numbers, right?
Home/away split shows that La. Tech was 6-0 vs. the East at home, 1-2 on the road, 3-0 at neutral site. NT was 2-1 at home, 4-2 on the road (very nice), 1-2 neutral, USM was 2-4 at home, 1-2 on the road. UTEP was 7-2 against the East... all of those games were at home (which that team in particular has a significant home advantage over the East due to travel... heck, it's significant to the West teams, too, and they were 0-1 neutral. UTSA was 2-1 at home, 1-5 on the road, 0-1 neutral. UAB didn't have any home games vs. the East. They went 6-3, all on the road.
So the West vs. East was 19-8 at home, 13-13 on the road, and 4-4 neutral. Removing La. Tech and UAB, who we established as better than their East counterparts, the record comes out 13-8 at home, 6-8 on the road, and 1-4 neutral.
Statistically speaking, the differential between sides of the league is not significant. The fact is, you can't get a true measure because the teams do not all play each other. Every statistic involved is going to be skewed by that fact. Marshall did not play NT, UTEP, or UAB. WKU didn't play UAB, USM, or UTEP.
Because of this, the top 2 East teams did not even play the worst West team or the 4th place west team. That's 12 games that would be added to this equation and, playing it safe, that's probably the East going an additional 8-4. And really, I'm thinking Marshall and WKU each would take 2 of 3 from the West teams they did not play.
Marshall beat North Texas both times they played. UNT couldn't score in 14 innings against the Herd.
The end.
I had one post in this thread before calling you a dickhead in my last one and in that post I did not call you any names. I retaliated as a result.
Wait: your argument is that the East was better even though the West had the far better record because Charlotte had a bad record against the West? Even if you exclude the East's worst team (which is illogical to do), the West still has a three game advantage. Christ.
The moron who wants to only look at 2 games to determine the better team instead of looking at the other 50+ games now wants to decide which division is better by looking at only four teams in each division instead of six teams in each division.
You've admitted that the West has a better top team and a better bottom team than the East. Already, at least one third (2 out of 6 teams) of the argument is in favor of the West. Now, your own attempt at statistics shows that the other four teams are .500 against the East.
Now, show us your brilliant logic by explaining this: If you admit that the West has a better top team, if you admit that the West has a better bottom team, and your own use of statistics shows a .500 record among the other four teams (which means it is pretty damn even among the four middle teams in each division), then how the fvck can you conclude that the East is the better division? Based on your own stats (illogical as they may be), the four middle teams are a wash. Based on your own admission, the West has the better top and better bottom team . . . yet somehow you argue that the East is better.
This is as dumb as this board has ever been.
That's simply bullshit. Statistically speaking, the West had a FAR better record against the East. You simply can't bullshit your way out of that. Statistically speaking, the West had the better RPI. Statistically speaking, even after removing the top and bottom teams of each division, as illogical as that is, the West still had the better RPI.
Are you too dumb to realize that the same can be said the other way about West teams not playing some easy East division teams? Your argument works for my side just as well as it works for you. That is why over 60 games those things tend to measure out equally. You'd have an argument not entirely as foolish as your other ones if the overall record was somewhat close, but it isn't! The West had the far superior record.
Even with all your buts, ifs, and other hypotheticals, the East going an additional 8-4 would STILL leave the West with the better record!
Not a single one of your arguments holds any weight.
"Previously" referred to other threads, moron.
I suggest anger management. That type of hate isn’t healthy.
Especially when you’re dying on a mountain of numbers that don’t reflect reality.
The fourth best record in the West was 10 games below .500 this season. There were 4 teams in the East above .500.
After all, you need to count 50 games instead of just a small sample, right? And obviously head to head means absolutely nothing, right?
The best team this season was Louisiana Tech (3-2 vs. Marshall). The second best was Marshall (2-1 vs. WKU, 2-0 vs. NT). The third best was WKU (2-1 vs. NT) who had an inexplicable loss to MT in the tournament after winning the 3 regular season meetings by a combined 21 runs. The fourth best team was North Texas (4-5 vs. the top 3 teams). What NT did a good job of was limiting losses to the bottom of the league. They lost just two games to teams 5-11 (any game there was a tossup except Charlotte, who was in total disarray at the end of the season and fired their coach after losing their last 5 by a combined 39-8). The rest of the teams were really not any better than the others over the course of the season.
For your own sake, seek help man.
Especially when you’re dying on a mountain of numbers that don’t reflect reality.
The fourth best record in the West was 10 games below .500 this season. There were 4 teams in the East above .500.
After all, you need to count 50 games instead of just a small sample, right? And obviously head to head means absolutely nothing, right?
The best team this season was Louisiana Tech (3-2 vs. Marshall). The second best was Marshall (2-1 vs. WKU, 2-0 vs. NT). The third best was WKU (2-1 vs. NT) who had an inexplicable loss to MT in the tournament after winning the 3 regular season meetings by a combined 21 runs. The fourth best team was North Texas (4-5 vs. the top 3 teams). What NT did a good job of was limiting losses to the bottom of the league. They lost just two games to teams 5-11 (any game there was a tossup except Charlotte, who was in total disarray at the end of the season and fired their coach after losing their last 5 by a combined 39-8). The rest of the teams were really not any better than the others over the course of the season.
For your own sake, seek help man.
Last edited:
Watch regionals that will be all over TV starting this weekend, and the WCWS that sells out every game.
Truth be told, softball has a decent following at the collegiate level. Perhaps growing, even. TV ratings are good enough that more regular season games are now being aired. Most places within C-USA charge for entry.
And Marshall tends to have very good turnouts, too. Its a reasonably healthy sport... to the point there’s now a secondary tournament for it.
Also, Alabama’s SEC Freshman of the Year pitcher Montana Fouts is from Grayson, Ky.
It’s not everyone’s cup of tea and that’s fine, but it does a really good job of filling the gap from March Madness into the beginning of summer.
You live in bizarro world. My numbers don't reflect reality? I am looking at the most logical and commonly ways to compare teams. On the other hand, you are wanting to look at a very small sample of games instead of the much bigger sample; you are wanting to only look at results in the tournament; you are only wanting to look at some of the teams in each division instead of all of them. Your attempts have absolutely no logic associated with them and are random methods ("let's eliminate the record from the worst team in the East," "let's eliminate the record from the best team in the West," "let's eliminate the record of both the best and worst team in each division") that STILL don't yield support for your argument. Well, let's compare what my numbers are and what your numbers are.
My numbers:
1) Overall conference record - this is the most commonly used and accepted measure of how to judge which teams are the best in a conference.
2) Division record vs. division record - when determining which division in a conference is stronger, it is logical and acceptable to look at the record against each other, especially when there is a huge sample size to help eliminate any anomalies.
3) Conference championships (regular season and tournament) - Again, a very logical and acceptable way to judge the best teams in a conference.
4) RPI - Yet another accepted and and commonly used way to compare teams.
5) Massey Ratings - Yet another accepted and commonly used way to compare teams.
Your numbers:
1) Head to Head - A fair comparison if there are not other games to go by, but when you have dozens of other comparable games, looking at simply two of them is foolish (see the Suns vs. Bucks example).
2) Only the Tournament Games but only if you exclude Louisiana Tech's wins As I already argued, simply looking at the results in the tournament is as dumb as looking at only the results in bowl games when determining a better conference/division. Worse, you wanted to do just that but only after excluding the best team from one of the divisions.
3) Wanting to Exclude Certain Teams from Divisions - First, you wanted to exclude Charlotte's record from the East. You claimed the West only had a better record because of how bad Charlotte was. When it was pointed out that eliminating Charlotte's record from the East still left the West with a better record, you then wanted to eliminate both the best and the worst team from each division. Then, when it was pointed out that eliminating four teams from the two divisions still didn't give the East a better record than the West, you abandoned the argument, which was the only thing bright you did in this thread, because the argument was illogical from the start.
4) Count the Number of Runs Scored - I couldn't type that with a straight face. You actually wanted to count the number of runs scored throughout multiple games to determine which team was better. My god.
How desperate must one's argument be to absolutely fabricate bullshit? The third best record in the West, both in C-USA games and overall, was Southern Miss. They finished 30-23 overall and 13-12 in the conference (including tournament). That's far different from "10 games below .500 this season," moron.
Correct. When you have 30+ games against similar opponents to compare, it is foolish to look at the results of only two games. Again, look at the Suns vs. Bucks example.
Looking at overall record is only valid if you also look at the schedule strength. The 30+ conference games are among the same opponents. The overall 50+ games are against a widely diverse group of opponents with drastic differences in strength schedule. You realize there are systems that actually look at these things, right? Unfortunately for you, like in every other logical measure, those systems and computers all agree with my argument.
Don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that looking at a bigger sample size of similar opponents is far more accurate than looking at a tiny (two games) sample size. Suns vs. Bucks, remember? There is merit in head-to-head, but when you have a far bigger sample size compared to just two games, it is of far lower value.
Jesus, how thickheaded must you be to not admit your overwhelming bias makes you argue like an idiot? WKU won the division. They had a far better overall record. They had the harder crossover games (they played the #1, #2, and #4 teams from the West compared to Marshall only playing the #1, #3, and #4 teams from the West) and still had the better conference record. Yet Marshall was better than them? WKU had the better conference record, won the division, had the better overall record, had the better RPI, had the better Massey rating . . . yet you argue that Marshall was better. Stop being a moron.
Says the guy who is arguing such unbelievably stupid shit that the overall record, conference record, division championship, RPI, Massey rating, etc. disagrees with his argument.
This colemag poster seems to be very opinionated. Only 10 posts in. Pretty decent start for a newbie.
The new guy is trying to mimic another poster. I've always hated people that do that.
.......If an alien starship was to slip out of plasma drive into orbit and only have one piece of information with which to determine whether or not the Earth was worthy of continuing to exist or be vaporized, and if that single piece of information was this thread:
Well, we had a good 4.5 billion year run!
Good luck Lady Herd starting tomorrow in Lynchburg!!
It is hard for a leopard to change its spots!
Let’s see...colemag.....gameloc....molecag......clogmae....eglocma....
the possibilities are endless!!!!
You have the worst humor of any poster in this board’s 20+ year history. Some attempts at bad jokes end up being humorous because of how bad the jokes are. Yours are even worse than those. You actually take the time to try and be creative and funny. It never works.
