ouhoops.com
forums roster schedule stats rankings rpi bracketology big xII standings recruiting ouhoopstv
Old 05-14-2018, 04:38 PM   #2951
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrybe View Post
Not sure how that argument holds water, Spock. By jumping Georgia from a 10 to a 7, the committee, in effect, cost South Carolina an opportunity to host both a regional and a super regional. That's not just a screwing, but in my book a royal screwing.
To each their own opinion. I would have had S. Carolina ranked above Georgia and hosting a regional and a super-regional as they were #8 in my personal seedings. However I do not consider seedings as an absolute. The RPI which is designed to eliminate subjectivity in its rankings has South Carolina ranked 9th (.6639) The seeding committee seeded the gamecocks 9th as the system suggest. The RPI had Tennessee ranked #8 (.6678) and Georgia #10 (.6634). The other teams seeded in the top 8 were also ranked by RPI in the top 8.

So I have difficulty considering S. Carolina screwed with a #9 seed and a #9 ranking. I do considered Tennessee with a #8 ranking and a #10 seed as getting screwed and the culprit was obviously Georgia who should have been seeded #10 in my opinion instead of #7.

I also provided a link that goes into much more detail at how they rpi rankings are broken down for you comparison. As you can see for the season Georgia had a better winning %, opponents SOS, road success, road rpi, and normal rpi than did S. Carolina. S. Carolina had a better SOS and adjusted rpi than Georgia. As the Nitty Gritty report reflects Georgia had a slightly better record than S. Carolina against the top 25 and the top 100.

Your and my argument for S. Carolina are based almost solely on our subjective opinions which are both laden with bias as the quantified performance on the field slightly favors Georgia. But I still think S. Carolina is the better team. I just cannot prove it and for certain they were not screwed. But Tennessee did get screwed by Georgia and S. Carolina too if you want to factor Tennessee being ranked higher but seeded lower than the gamecocks.


https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...05-13-2018.pdf

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...05-13-2018.pdf
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 06:11 PM   #2952
sybarite
National Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,629
Default Re: Softball

I still have a basic problem believing that the rpi formula is working. In order to try to figure it out, I've been listing Florida, Georgia, and OU schedules as far as rankings of non-conference opponents. It ought to work if your conference plays tough schedule and wins that your conference should have a high rpi. Thus far what I've found:

OU plays the highest ranked non-conference schedule:

Average non-conference opponent strength:

77.667 Oklahoma
89.065 Florida
106.167 Georgia

Whoa! Since OU plays the toughest non-conference schedule, OU should have the worst record. Right. Well, OU is 29-3 against non-conference teams with two losses at neutral sites and one on the road. OU has not lost a non-conference (or conference game) at home. Florida was 27-4 against non-conference opposition with losses at Gainesville, Orlando, Tallahassee, and Lafayette, LA. Florida had 19 home games and another five that they hosted in Tampa. OU had 11 non-conference games in Norman (as opposed to 19 for Florida). Georgia was 22-1 in Athens in non-conference play, 4-1 at neutral sites, and 1-0 on the road (Georgia Tech). One road game, five at a neutral site, and 23 at home? Really? They were 27-2 in non-conference play, almost all at home against weak opposition. The neutral site game they lost was to Oregon.

Thus far, I am not seeing how the rpi got its high ranking as a conference.
sybarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 07:08 PM   #2953
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by sybarite View Post
I still have a basic problem believing that the rpi formula is working. In order to try to figure it out, I've been listing Florida, Georgia, and OU schedules as far as rankings of non-conference opponents. It ought to work if your conference plays tough schedule and wins that your conference should have a high rpi. Thus far what I've found:

OU plays the highest ranked non-conference schedule:

Average non-conference opponent strength:

77.667 Oklahoma
89.065 Florida
106.167 Georgia

Whoa! Since OU plays the toughest non-conference schedule, OU should have the worst record. Right. Well, OU is 29-3 against non-conference teams with two losses at neutral sites and one on the road. OU has not lost a non-conference (or conference game) at home. Florida was 27-4 against non-conference opposition with losses at Gainesville, Orlando, Tallahassee, and Lafayette, LA. Florida had 19 home games and another five that they hosted in Tampa. OU had 11 non-conference games in Norman (as opposed to 19 for Florida). Georgia was 22-1 in Athens in non-conference play, 4-1 at neutral sites, and 1-0 on the road (Georgia Tech). One road game, five at a neutral site, and 23 at home? Really? They were 27-2 in non-conference play, almost all at home against weak opposition. The neutral site game they lost was to Oregon.

Thus far, I am not seeing how the rpi got its high ranking as a conference.
We can refute the RPI/seeding system all we want but if you look at every team that has qualified for the WCWS over the last 10 years we see that 72.5% were seeded in the top 8, 82.5% in the top 10, 96.2% in the top 16 and only 3.8% (3 teams) were not seeded. As a prognostication tool the RPI seeding system has been highly accurate.

Could it be improved I think so. I think the need to tweak the system to allow a team's WP count for more of the rpi than 25%. Increasing WP to 40% would give each team more control of their ranking and reduce the impact of scheduling/conference membership where they have minimal control.

However the history shows the RPI/seeding system has effectively performed is task. I just think it could be slightly more effective.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_N...all_Tournament
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 07:28 PM   #2954
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by sybarite View Post
I still have a basic problem believing that the rpi formula is working. In order to try to figure it out, I've been listing Florida, Georgia, and OU schedules as far as rankings of non-conference opponents. It ought to work if your conference plays tough schedule and wins that your conference should have a high rpi. Thus far what I've found:

OU plays the highest ranked non-conference schedule:

Average non-conference opponent strength:

77.667 Oklahoma
89.065 Florida
106.167 Georgia

Whoa! Since OU plays the toughest non-conference schedule, OU should have the worst record. Right. Well, OU is 29-3 against non-conference teams with two losses at neutral sites and one on the road. OU has not lost a non-conference (or conference game) at home. Florida was 27-4 against non-conference opposition with losses at Gainesville, Orlando, Tallahassee, and Lafayette, LA. Florida had 19 home games and another five that they hosted in Tampa. OU had 11 non-conference games in Norman (as opposed to 19 for Florida). Georgia was 22-1 in Athens in non-conference play, 4-1 at neutral sites, and 1-0 on the road (Georgia Tech). One road game, five at a neutral site, and 23 at home? Really? They were 27-2 in non-conference play, almost all at home against weak opposition. The neutral site game they lost was to Oregon.

Thus far, I am not seeing how the rpi got its high ranking as a conference.
We can refute the RPI/seeding system all we want but if you look at every team that has qualified for the WCWS over the last 10 years we see that 72.5% were seeded in the top 8, 82.5% in the top 10, 96.2% in the top 16 and only 3.8% (3 teams) were not seeded. As a prognostication tool the RPI seeding system has been highly accurate.

Could it be improved I think so. I think the need to tweak the system to allow a team's WP count for more of the rpi than 25%. Increasing WP to 40% would give each team more control of their ranking and reduce the impact of scheduling/conference membership where they have minimal control.

However the history shows the RPI/seeding system has effectively performed is task. I just think it could be slightly more effective.

P.S. the non-conference schedule does not determine SOS games against top 25, top 50, top 100 and top 150 determines SOS for all games against Division I opponents.

The Nitty Gritty link will show which teams are playing the toughest schedule and it is not OU among the top 20 teams OU has played the fewest top 25 teams and the second fewest top 50 teams. Only Hofstra has played fewer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_N...all_Tournament

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...05-13-2018.pdf
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 08:22 PM   #2955
Speedy17
Role Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 657
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerSpock View Post
We can refute the RPI/seeding system all we want but if you look at every team that has qualified for the WCWS over the last 10 years we see that 72.5% were seeded in the top 8, 82.5% in the top 10, 96.2% in the top 16 and only 3.8% (3 teams) were not seeded. As a prognostication tool the RPI seeding system has been highly accurate.

Could it be improved I think so. I think the need to tweak the system to allow a team's WP count for more of the rpi than 25%. Increasing WP to 40% would give each team more control of their ranking and reduce the impact of scheduling/conference membership where they have minimal control.

However the history shows the RPI/seeding system has effectively performed is task. I just think it could be slightly more effective.

P.S. the non-conference schedule does not determine SOS games against top 25, top 50, top 100 and top 150 determines SOS for all games against Division I opponents.

The Nitty Gritty link will show which teams are playing the toughest schedule and it is not OU among the top 20 teams OU has played the fewest top 25 teams and the second fewest top 50 teams. Only Hofstra has played fewer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_N...all_Tournament

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...05-13-2018.pdf
OU ranked in the RPI as high as it possibly could have given the schedule. The real difference does not lie in the Non-Conference but rather in the Conference (Big 12) which only has 7 teams while the Pac 12 and SEC are playing ranked teams in every conference game. As I always say, OU needs to get in the Top 8 and things will take care of themselves.

The one team that got over ranked is Alabama - there is NO way they deserved a #12 seed. That one was shameful for the second year in a row.
Speedy17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 08:45 PM   #2956
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedy17 View Post
OU ranked in the RPI as high as it possibly could have given the schedule. The real difference does not lie in the Non-Conference but rather in the Conference (Big 12) which only has 7 teams while the Pac 12 and SEC are playing ranked teams in every conference game. As I always say, OU needs to get in the Top 8 and things will take care of themselves.

The one team that got over ranked is Alabama - there is NO way they deserved a #12 seed. That one was shameful for the second year in a row.

Bingo!
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 09:34 PM   #2957
sybarite
National Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,629
Default Re: Softball

My point is that I don't believe that--at all.

The primary thing that has been demonstrated is that the home team (not the seeds) has an advantage. Is it difficult to beat a higher seed, or to beat the home team? Seeded teams have a huge advantage.

I don't agree as much with the idea of weighting the victory as I do in weighting the location. When you look at the conference play, you see that they tend to win at home and lose on the road. Yet, this does not receive adequate recognition.

I want to see that applied to non-conference games. It is an outrage that the committee does not put forward an rpi formula that recognizes the advantage of playing at home. Almost every team has a better record at home.

Yet, the conferences that play almost all of their non-conference games at home are not penalized for it. Until there is a formula that penalizes teams for remaining at home, I will not recognize any superiority of the SEC or Pac 12 at all. Also, I will continue to maintain that the formula must be revised until they see a need to play on the road.

23 home non-conference games and only one on the road? Really? And, you wonder why their non-conference record is so good when it was only 5-1 on a neutral site, 1-0 on the road, and 22-1 at home? You show me thirteen teams with that type of imbalance and want me to accept that they were better as a conference?

That's like the guy who thinks that the guy from the ghetto has equal opportunity with the billionaire's son.
sybarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 02:37 AM   #2958
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Red face Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by sybarite View Post
My point is that I don't believe that--at all.

The primary thing that has been demonstrated is that the home team (not the seeds) has an advantage. Is it difficult to beat a higher seed, or to beat the home team? Seeded teams have a huge advantage.

I don't agree as much with the idea of weighting the victory as I do in weighting the location. When you look at the conference play, you see that they tend to win at home and lose on the road. Yet, this does not receive adequate recognition.

I want to see that applied to non-conference games. It is an outrage that the committee does not put forward an rpi formula that recognizes the advantage of playing at home. Almost every team has a better record at home.

Yet, the conferences that play almost all of their non-conference games at home are not penalized for it. Until there is a formula that penalizes teams for remaining at home, I will not recognize any superiority of the SEC or Pac 12 at all. Also, I will continue to maintain that the formula must be revised until they see a need to play on the road.

23 home non-conference games and only one on the road? Really? And, you wonder why their non-conference record is so good when it was only 5-1 on a neutral site, 1-0 on the road, and 22-1 at home? You show me thirteen teams with that type of imbalance and want me to accept that they were better as a conference?

That's like the guy who thinks that the guy from the ghetto has equal opportunity with the billionaire's son.
You seem to want to place all of your focus on non-conference road games as though a conference road games means nothing. The adjusted rpi provides more points for a road win and penalizes more for a home loss just as they do in basketball and baseball. They also recognize that playing conference road games are as difficult as playing non-conference road games.

This year OU (13) played fewer road games than any SEC or Pac 12 team except for A&M. Florida played 19, Washington 19, Alabama 18, S. Carolina 18, Auburn 17, MSU 16, Missouri 16, Oregon 16, UCLA 15, Arizona 15, Tennessee 14, LSU 13, Georgia 13 and A&M 12. Everyone of the SEC teams and Pac 12 teams played 12 conference road games excepting rainouts. That is 12 conference games against quality opposition. Check the Nitty Gritty link below. The facts do not lie.

The problem is OU played a total of 18 conference games with only 4 on the road. You do not penalize 22 other teams (13 SEC + 9 Pac 12) because OU has difficult scheduling issues as a member of a small 7 team conference which necessitates scheduling stronger non-conference road games than the SEC/Pac 12 schools.

Were Nebraska, Missouri and A&M still in the Big 12 this discussion would be mute. But they are no longer conference members and OU has a scheduling issue not the Pac 12 or the SEC.

P.S. No one really cares if you recognize Pac 12/SEC superiority. It is a free country you have the right to choose to be wrong and yes the Pac 12/SEC presently play more road games than the Sooners. Should we penalize OU for playing so few road games.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...05-13-2018.pdf
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 02:45 AM   #2959
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Red face Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by sybarite View Post
My point is that I don't believe that--at all.

The primary thing that has been demonstrated is that the home team (not the seeds) has an advantage. Is it difficult to beat a higher seed, or to beat the home team? Seeded teams have a huge advantage.

I don't agree as much with the idea of weighting the victory as I do in weighting the location. When you look at the conference play, you see that they tend to win at home and lose on the road. Yet, this does not receive adequate recognition.

I want to see that applied to non-conference games. It is an outrage that the committee does not put forward an rpi formula that recognizes the advantage of playing at home. Almost every team has a better record at home.

Yet, the conferences that play almost all of their non-conference games at home are not penalized for it. Until there is a formula that penalizes teams for remaining at home, I will not recognize any superiority of the SEC or Pac 12 at all. Also, I will continue to maintain that the formula must be revised until they see a need to play on the road.

23 home non-conference games and only one on the road? Really? And, you wonder why their non-conference record is so good when it was only 5-1 on a neutral site, 1-0 on the road, and 22-1 at home? You show me thirteen teams with that type of imbalance and want me to accept that they were better as a conference?

That's like the guy who thinks that the guy from the ghetto has equal opportunity with the billionaire's son.
You seem to want to place all of your focus on non-conference road games as though a conference road games means nothing. The adjusted rpi provides more points for a road win and penalizes more for a home loss just as they do in basketball and baseball. They also recognize that playing conference road games are as difficult as playing non-conference road games.

This year OU (13) played fewer road games than any SEC or Pac 12 team except for A&M. Florida played 19, Washington 19, Alabama 18, S. Carolina 18, Auburn 17, MSU 16, Missouri 16, Oregon 16, UCLA 15, Arizona 15, Tennessee 14, LSU 13, Georgia 13 and A&M 12. Everyone of the SEC teams and Pac 12 teams played 12 conference road games excepting rainouts. That is 12 conference games against quality opposition. Check the Nitty Gritty link below. The facts do not lie.

The problem is OU played only 18 conference games with only 4 on the road. You do not penalize 22 other teams (13 SEC + 9 Pac 12) because OU has difficult scheduling issues as a member of a small 7 team conference which necessitates scheduling stronger non-conference road games than the SEC/Pac 12 schools.

Were Nebraska, Missouri and A&M still in the Big 12 this discussion would be mute. Six additional top 25 games and 9 top 50 games provides a totally different perspective, ranking and seeding. But they are no longer conference members and now OU has a scheduling issue and it is not the Pac 12 or the SEC's job to accommodate OU's needs.

P.S. No one really cares if you recognize Pac 12/SEC superiority. It is a free country you have the right to choose to be wrong and yes the Pac 12/SEC already play more road games than the Sooners. They also play more games against the top 25 and the top 50. Unfortunately for us the RPI/Seeding system makes adjustments for OU's scheduling anomaly which works to our demise. The RPI is not ideal but it is more than fair. Life is not always fair and OU's circumstances are not fair for the Sooners but they are what they are. The blame is not a Pac 12/SEC bias it is a conference SOS bias that Sooners experience in football, wrestling and softball and women's gymnastics. Fortunately we can to some extent schedule through it in the other sports. For Patty it is not so easy and Lincoln on occasion will get a Big 12 hickey come CFP time.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...05-13-2018.pdf
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.

Last edited by SoonerSpock; 05-15-2018 at 03:34 AM.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 11:23 AM   #2960
sybarite
National Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,629
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerSpock View Post

P.S. No one really cares if you recognize Pac 12/SEC superiority. It is a free country you have the right to choose to be wrong and yes the Pac 12/SEC already play more road games than the Sooners. They also play more games against the top 25 and the top 50. Unfortunately for us the RPI/Seeding system makes adjustments for OU's scheduling anomaly which works to our demise. The RPI is not ideal but it is more than fair. Life is not always fair and OU's circumstances are not fair for the Sooners but they are what they are. The blame is not a Pac 12/SEC bias it is a conference SOS bias that Sooners experience in football, wrestling and softball and women's gymnastics. Fortunately we can to some extent schedule through it in the other sports. For Patty it is not so easy and Lincoln on occasion will get a Big 12 hickey come CFP time.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...05-13-2018.pdf
Well. It seems to bother you. If it doesn't, don''t respond. Incidentally, your facts are wrong.

Let's see if I can explain a concept. If you wish to compare groups A and B, and you have no direct comparison, you look for some way to compare them. Conveniently, both A and B have played C and D. So, how do you compare?

First, let's see if we can recognize a simple fact. Within A, we can see the following:

1) hopefully, they all play each other in order to get a complete picture,
2) but, we can see that it makes a difference where the games are played. Within A, if you play at home, you tend to win. If you play on the road, you tend to lose. So, in order to try to get some balance within the members of A, you not only need to play every team, but you also need to play at home and on the road against every team.

Unfortunately, while this is done in professional baseball (except for interdivision and interleague play), there is simply no way that you will get every team in A to play every other team in A at home and on the road. But, you get as much information as you can, realizing that you aren't even able to be accurate in your assessment of the simple membership of group A without getting complete information on those factors that appear to make a difference.

But, now you wish to utilize information derived from comparisons against C and D. You begin with the information that it makes a difference where you play. BUT, when playing C and D, you make every effort to play all of your games at home?

Just from what you know about comparisons within Group A, it is totally invalid to try to get anything valid if you only play at home. It makes your information useless, and your comparisons absurd. You want to have A ranked higher than B when A only plays at home while B plays mostly on the road? And you don't see your problem?

Mentally, you aren't on third base with this. You aren't even out of the starting gate until you achieve some way of comparing A and B when they are using different parameters in their operations vs C and D.

Now, if you don't get the picture, that's why you need to look at non-conference schedules rather than intraleague games when trying to compare A to B. Your intraleague games are meaningless as comparison tools.
sybarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 03:36 PM   #2961
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by sybarite View Post
Well. It seems to bother you. If it doesn't, don''t respond. Incidentally, your facts are wrong.

Let's see if I can explain a concept. If you wish to compare groups A and B, and you have no direct comparison, you look for some way to compare them. Conveniently, both A and B have played C and D. So, how do you compare?

First, let's see if we can recognize a simple fact. Within A, we can see the following:

1) hopefully, they all play each other in order to get a complete picture,
2) but, we can see that it makes a difference where the games are played. Within A, if you play at home, you tend to win. If you play on the road, you tend to lose. So, in order to try to get some balance within the members of A, you not only need to play every team, but you also need to play at home and on the road against every team.

Unfortunately, while this is done in professional baseball (except for interdivision and interleague play), there is simply no way that you will get every team in A to play every other team in A at home and on the road. But, you get as much information as you can, realizing that you aren't even able to be accurate in your assessment of the simple membership of group A without getting complete information on those factors that appear to make a difference.

But, now you wish to utilize information derived from comparisons against C and D. You begin with the information that it makes a difference where you play. BUT, when playing C and D, you make every effort to play all of your games at home?

Just from what you know about comparisons within Group A, it is totally invalid to try to get anything valid if you only play at home. It makes your information useless, and your comparisons absurd. You want to have A ranked higher than B when A only plays at home while B plays mostly on the road? And you don't see your problem?

Mentally, you aren't on third base with this. You aren't even out of the starting gate until you achieve some way of comparing A and B when they are using different parameters in their operations vs C and D.

Now, if you don't get the picture, that's why you need to look at non-conference schedules rather than intraleague games when trying to compare A to B. Your intraleague games are meaningless as comparison tools.
Your standard diversion tactic when you cannot defend the facts. You want to focus on non-conference road games and disregard conference road games. Hog wash!! Per the attached link RPI has long calculated a Road RPI for all teams and 13 of the top Road RPI teams are from the SEC (8) and Pac 12 (5). The exceptions are OU, FSU and Baylor.

So the system does address your complaint about road wins along with the quality of those road wins. Whether those road games are conference games or non-conference games is irrelevant. What is relevant is how good were those road teams.

It should be noted that Hofstra (14) would have made the top 16 in road RPI but were not seeded for the NCAA tourney nor are they a Power 5 school so I excluded them.

Look further at the link and it will also note that OU played the 20th strongest SOS and had the 19th strongest opponent's SOS. That is their demise in the seedings.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...05-13-2018.pdf
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.

Last edited by SoonerSpock; 05-15-2018 at 03:38 PM.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 03:53 PM   #2962
BanjoCharley
Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,289
Default Re: Softball

It doesn’t seem to me that a four seed vs. a three RPI is a “demise” I tend away from the histrionic.
__________________
While you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.
BanjoCharley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 04:05 PM   #2963
sybarite
National Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,629
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerSpock View Post
Your standard diversion tactic when you cannot defend the facts. You want to focus on non-conference road games and disregard conference road games. Hog wash!! Per the attached link RPI has long calculated a Road RPI for all teams and 13 of the top Road RPI teams are from the SEC (8) and Pac 12 (5). The exceptions are OU, FSU and Baylor.

So the system does address your complaint about road wins along with the quality of those road wins. Whether those road games are conference games or non-conference games is irrelevant. What is relevant is how good were those road teams.

It should be noted that Hofstra (14) would have made the top 16 in road RPI but were not seeded for the NCAA tourney nor are they a Power 5 school so I excluded them.

Look further at the link and it will also note that OU played the 20th strongest SOS and had the 19th strongest opponent's SOS. That is their demise in the seedings.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...05-13-2018.pdf
You have no idea about how to test an idea? Really? YES. When trying to develop a comparison between Group A and Group B, you have to deal only with data that allow a valid comparison. You must get a complete and valid picture of Group A internally and Group B internally.

It is totally invalid to arrive at an evaluation of A or B if you use different criteria for the comparison. You must try to equalize it. Thus, we use only non-conference data to get how A and B respond to equivalent situations.
sybarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 04:43 PM   #2964
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by sybarite View Post
You have no idea about how to test an idea? Really? YES. When trying to develop a comparison between Group A and Group B, you have to deal only with data that allow a valid comparison. You must get a complete and valid picture of Group A internally and Group B internally.

It is totally invalid to arrive at an evaluation of A or B if you use different criteria for the comparison. You must try to equalize it. Thus, we use only non-conference data to get how A and B respond to equivalent situations.
Utter stupidity to conclude that non-conference games are the only criteria for comparing teams. In softball you are excluding close to half of the games in many cases against the best competition. In football you would exclude 65-75% of the games played.

Trying to apply a scientific technique to athletic contests is idiocy. First using your comparison of non-conference opponents is flawed because each team is playing a different non-conference schedule. There is virtually no equivalency and too much important data is excluded. Hint a different non-conference schedule is exactly as flawed just as a different conference schedules. Surprised with your scientific background you fail to recognize the lack of commonality when comparing non-conference schedules.

Athletic schedules virtually prohibit the ability to create equivalent situations hence the advent of the ranking systems both subjective (polls) and quantitative (RPI, Sagarin, etc.) all of which have their shortcomings.

Like it, love it or hate it. The participants compared to their seedings in the WCWS over the last decade strongly illustrate the effectiveness the RPI system has had in the seeding process. But hopefully they will continue to tweak the system on an ongoing basis to make it even more effective.
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 05:03 PM   #2965
sybarite
National Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,629
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerSpock View Post
Utter stupidity to conclude that non-conference games are the only criteria for comparing teams. In softball you are excluding close to half of the games in many cases against the best competition. In football you would exclude 65-75% of the games played.

Trying to apply a scientific technique to athletic contests is idiocy. First using your comparison of non-conference opponents is flawed because each team is playing a different non-conference schedule. There is virtually no equivalency and too much important data is excluded. Hint a different non-conference schedule is exactly as flawed just as a different conference schedules. Surprised with your scientific background you fail to recognize the lack of commonality when comparing non-conference schedules.

Athletic schedules virtually prohibit the ability to create equivalent situations hence the advent of the ranking systems both subjective (polls) and quantitative (RPI, Sagarin, etc.) all of which have their shortcomings.

Like it, love it or hate it. The participants compared to their seedings in the WCWS over the last decade strongly illustrate the effectiveness the RPI system has had in the seeding process. But hopefully they will continue to tweak the system on an ongoing basis to make it even more effective.
Did you not have even one course in statistics, science, or anything that dealt with how to compare things?

If you want to compare A to B, you must compare it on the same basis.

You can't set up one animal on one diet, and different one on another, but then have them all in different environments? You control all variables that you can with the exception of the ones that you wish to test.

You can't compare conference A to conference B by mixing variables. You can't include games against conference A when that is what you are trying to compare. You invalidate the data, compromise the comparison.
sybarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 06:27 PM   #2966
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by sybarite View Post
Did you not have even one course in statistics, science, or anything that dealt with how to compare things?

If you want to compare A to B, you must compare it on the same basis.

You can't set up one animal on one diet, and different one on another, but then have them all in different environments? You control all variables that you can with the exception of the ones that you wish to test.

You can't compare conference A to conference B by mixing variables. You can't include games against conference A when that is what you are trying to compare. You invalidate the data, compromise the comparison.
Yes, I have a masters in statistics and I know what you are attempt to compare is an invalid comparison. Comparing OU playing Oregon to Florida playing FSU is no more significant in determining which team should be seeded than comparing Florida playing Georgia to OU playing OSU. Also not all non-conference teams have an equal probability of playing a particular team for a multitude of reasons.

All your approach would do is compare non-conference scheduling and the system already has a non-conference RPI calculation. Check the link below. It shows that 11 of the top 16 non-conference RPI's are from the SEC (6) and Pac 12 (5). OU, FSU, Baylor, Ohio State and Long Beach State are the other 5.

To legitimately compare teams for seeding purposes you must compare the entire season and that means all 50+ games. You cannot isolate on the non-conference schedule and totally disregard the 27 conference games against top 25 teams Florida played and focus only on their 6 non-conference games against top 25 teams. OU's 21 conference games and Florida's 27 conference games matter significantly in ranking the best teams. To use that logic in the name of being scientific makes no sense.

It is merely your standard diversion tactic to avoid discussing the relative completeness of the RPI approach.

What we do know about RPI is:

1. They weight home, road and neutral wins and losses to reflect location.
2. They factor in wins against teams 1-25
3. They factor in wins against teams 26-50, 1-100 and 1-150
4. They consider only Division I opponents
5. They track and factor in the team road record
6. They track the last 10 games and there is some question if use still used
7. They factor in Division I winning percentage
8. They factor in SOS
9. They factor in opponent's SOS
10. They track and factor in road success
11. They calculate a road RPI
12. They calculate a normal RPI
13. They calculate a non-conference RPI
14. They calculate a conference RPI
15. They calculate an adjusted RPI

Now what do you want included that is missing. It definitely is not non-conference comparison as is illustrated by the systems non-conference RPI, Road RPI and their respective records.

The committee takes all the above data and its RPI ranking then puts their "eye test" on the results to derive their seedings. And you suggest disregarding the above wealth of information to do a controlled scientific comparison of non-conference games to make team comparisons in the name of equivalency.

Foolery! The RPI is making their quantitative analysis by considering not some but all of a team's performance data to make their team comparisons and seedings. Far more complete than only looking at a subset of the data.

Want to tweak the system to give non-conference games more weight? A legitimate desire for you? Want more transparency on system calculations? A legitimate desire for me. Want more weighting for team W% and less weight for SOS? A legitimate desire for me. But neither of us have enough date to substantiate the need for the desired changes. It is what it is. A valueless opinion of both.
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 09:46 PM   #2967
sybarite
National Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,629
Default Re: Softball

You keep referring to a system that has not been established to be valid, as though continuing to state it would make it valid.

Let me try to explain it one last time. Let's say:

1) we want to establish the effect of a medication on rats
2) we must administer the medication in the same way to every rat
3) we must have every rat maintained in the same exact manner throughout the procedure: diet, temperature, lighting, etc.
4) we must have a control group that does not receive the medication, but which undergoes every other aspect of the experiment exactly the same as the rat that undergoes the medication.

In this way, and only in this way, can you define the effect of a medication. You must have a control population. This is also the reason that human experimentation is difficult. Most don't want to be treated as test subjects with every aspect of their lives controlled.

You test one thing at a time.

Now, you want to compare conferences? You have to have a controlled environment. Since that isn't possible, you reduce the variables as much as you can.

You can't compare conferences while using data within a conference as a part of the comparison. You compare how they perform against others, not against others and within at the same time.

If you didn't learn this, how could you perform statistics? You just keep repeating the same mantra--that you must include rpi against conference teams. It is the rpi that is in question. Can you get that into your mind? It is the validity of the rpi that is in question.

If we get the right questions answered, we may find that the SEC is stronger. But, we can't unless we can validate something that isn't yet established, the validity of the rpi formula.
sybarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 03:18 AM   #2968
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by sybarite View Post
You keep referring to a system that has not been established to be valid, as though continuing to state it would make it valid.

Let me try to explain it one last time. Let's say:

1) we want to establish the effect of a medication on rats
2) we must administer the medication in the same way to every rat
3) we must have every rat maintained in the same exact manner throughout the procedure: diet, temperature, lighting, etc.
4) we must have a control group that does not receive the medication, but which undergoes every other aspect of the experiment exactly the same as the rat that undergoes the medication.

In this way, and only in this way, can you define the effect of a medication. You must have a control population. This is also the reason that human experimentation is difficult. Most don't want to be treated as test subjects with every aspect of their lives controlled.

You test one thing at a time.

Now, you want to compare conferences? You have to have a controlled environment. Since that isn't possible, you reduce the variables as much as you can.

You can't compare conferences while using data within a conference as a part of the comparison. You compare how they perform against others, not against others and within at the same time.

If you didn't learn this, how could you perform statistics? You just keep repeating the same mantra--that you must include rpi against conference teams. It is the rpi that is in question. Can you get that into your mind? It is the validity of the rpi that is in question.

If we get the right questions answered, we may find that the SEC is stronger. But, we can't unless we can validate something that isn't yet established, the validity of the rpi formula.
Congrats! I took the bait and let you divert the discussion from the effectiveness of the RPI rankings/seedings which has been previously documented as very effective over the last decade to a discussion about testing techniques which is germane to nothing regarding the RPI rankings/seedings. As always you want to talk about anything but the subject matter.

You want non-conference performance to be the sole criteria for comparing teams. Hogwash! While the committee does use that criteria as part of their comparison and provides a non-conference RPI ranking they also conclude several other factors (listed in previous post) must also be considered in their comparison and have devised systems to track, evaluate and compare this factors in determining their seedings.

You must measure and compare all factors that impacts team results if that is what you are attempting to compare. Difficulty measuring and comparing a factor does not warrant excluding it as a comparison factor which is what you are doing when disregarding conference performance.

The comparison you want has long been done by the committee with their non-conference rpi rankings. But they rightly measure a multitude of other factors that impact team results and can effectively be used in making a final seeding. But just for you their non-conference RPI results are as follows.

N-C RPI--------------Adj RPI

#1 FSU -------------------5
#2 UCLA------------------2
#3 Oregon----------------1
#4 Washington-----------6
#5 OU---------------------4
#6 ASU -------------------7
#7 Tennessee-------------8
#8 LSU-------------------11
#9 Kentucky-------------13
#10 Florida ---------------3
#11 Georgia-------------11
#12 S. Carolina-----------9
#13 Baylor---------------14
#14 Arizona--------------12
#15 Ohio State-----------30
#16 Long Beach State---21
#17 Mississippi State----20
#18 A&M-----------------15
#19 Louisiana------------22
#20 Auburn--------------18
#21 Alabama-------------16
#22 Arkansas ------------17
#23 Nebraska ------------45
#24 Minnesota -----------24
#25 Michigan -------------31

Notice a trend among conferences using your non-conference criteria. 8 of the top ten and 16 of the top 25 are from the SEC/Pac-12. The numbers for the overall adjusted RPI are 8 and 17. 11 are SEC teams and the two other SEC teams that made the 64 team tourney were Missouri #28 and Mississippi #40 making it 13 for 13 from the SEC using your criteria.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...05-13-2018.pdf
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.

Last edited by SoonerSpock; 05-16-2018 at 03:24 AM.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 05:33 AM   #2969
sybarite
National Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,629
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerSpock View Post
Congrats! I took the bait and let you divert the discussion from the effectiveness of the RPI rankings/seedings which has been previously documented as very effective over the last decade to a discussion about testing techniques which is germane to nothing regarding the RPI rankings/seedings. As always you want to talk about anything but the subject matter.

You want non-conference performance to be the sole criteria for comparing teams. Hogwash! While the committee does use that criteria as part of their comparison and provides a non-conference RPI ranking they also conclude several other factors (listed in previous post) must also be considered in their comparison and have devised systems to track, evaluate and compare this factors in determining their seedings.

You must measure and compare all factors that impacts team results if that is what you are attempting to compare. Difficulty measuring and comparing a factor does not warrant excluding it as a comparison factor which is what you are doing when disregarding conference performance.

The comparison you want has long been done by the committee with their non-conference rpi rankings. But they rightly measure a multitude of other factors that impact team results and can effectively be used in making a final seeding. But just for you their non-conference RPI results are as follows.

N-C RPI--------------Adj RPI

#1 FSU -------------------5
#2 UCLA------------------2
#3 Oregon----------------1
#4 Washington-----------6
#5 OU---------------------4
#6 ASU -------------------7
#7 Tennessee-------------8
#8 LSU-------------------11
#9 Kentucky-------------13
#10 Florida ---------------3
#11 Georgia-------------11
#12 S. Carolina-----------9
#13 Baylor---------------14
#14 Arizona--------------12
#15 Ohio State-----------30
#16 Long Beach State---21
#17 Mississippi State----20
#18 A&M-----------------15
#19 Louisiana------------22
#20 Auburn--------------18
#21 Alabama-------------16
#22 Arkansas ------------17
#23 Nebraska ------------45
#24 Minnesota -----------24
#25 Michigan -------------31

Notice a trend among conferences using your non-conference criteria. 8 of the top ten and 16 of the top 25 are from the SEC/Pac-12. The numbers for the overall adjusted RPI are 8 and 17. 11 are SEC teams and the two other SEC teams that made the 64 team tourney were Missouri #28 and Mississippi #40 making it 13 for 13 from the SEC using your criteria.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...05-13-2018.pdf
Again. It is the formula of the rpi that we don't trust. You keep trying to state that it is accepted and correct. There are a great number of people who do not accept the validity of the rpi. It is not effective unless it is accepted.

The fact that the NCAA, ESPN, and committee have accepted it as the primary factor is exactly what is at question. When you state that the committee has done this, you may have accepted it. Not everyone does. The fact is that the committee members have stated that the final determinant is an eyeball test, which means that even they don't accept it.

I don't think that the formula for the rpi weights where a game is played adequately. You accept it. Let me suggest that there is enough question that it will eventually be changed.
sybarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 06:44 AM   #2970
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by sybarite View Post
Again. It is the formula of the rpi that we don't trust. You keep trying to state that it is accepted and correct. There are a great number of people who do not accept the validity of the rpi. It is not effective unless it is accepted.

The fact that the NCAA, ESPN, and committee have accepted it as the primary factor is exactly what is at question. When you state that the committee has done this, you may have accepted it. Not everyone does. The fact is that the committee members have stated that the final determinant is an eyeball test, which means that even they don't accept it.

I don't think that the formula for the rpi weights where a game is played adequately. You accept it. Let me suggest that there is enough question that it will eventually be changed.
No it is the formula of the RPI's you don't trust despite the historical accuracy of their results. It might not be accepted but that does not determine its accuracy. What the committee and NCAA membership has accepted is their recognition that the RPI rankings while not absolute is doing an effective job of fulfilling its charter.

The RPI is not a utopic solution. It has its faults. It has its things you, others and I would like to see changed. It needs to continue to be a dynamic system that is constantly evolving toward a more ideal selection process.

It also has problems that will never be resolved such as margin of victory because of the system's desire to avoid the gambling entity. There will always be a disparity in comparisons because teams do not play the same schedule and never will. The sports season cannot be easily controlled for clinical study. Too many absolute variable difficult to measure.

I abhor the absence of transparency where we can see every minute calculation, you despise the inclusion of conference results became you are comparing apples to oranges and I would like to see more weight on WP% and less weight on SOS. Many others have their complaints. But all of our objections are subjective as we have no documentation to justify any changes to improve results. And results are the name of the game.

What we do know is that the historical results of the system has been exceedingly successful in projecting the participants in the Final Four, Women's Final Four, CWS and WCWS. And it is the best accepted alternative available today for its participants.

But those highly accurate results don't change our opinions which are the basis of American life where a landslide is a 54% majority with totally 46% opposed. The RPI is no different about half the people will like it and half will hate it depending on how it affects their team, their conference or appears to them to favor others. Regardless what changes are made and how accurate the RPI becomes over time half the people are still going to despise it. Just like they do/did the AP poll, Sagarin rating, Palm projections past computer polls, etc. It is the American way of life and applies to all things from race to religion, to politic and to sports. It comes from better than 300 million people all having their own opinion.

It is getting a consensus that is the challenge regardless the subject. But the RPI does a very good job. I feel certain as do you that it could do a better job. But getting a consensus for more than a moment is extremely doubtful.
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.

Last edited by SoonerSpock; 05-16-2018 at 06:50 AM.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 06:58 AM   #2971
sybarite
National Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,629
Default Re: Softball

You assume the results are accurate because you accept them. I don't. I would insist that the formula be revised. I don't think it can be perfect. But, it can be a lot more useful than it is.

By now, if you haven't noticed, I simply do not accept your premise that everything is as it should be.
sybarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 08:06 AM   #2972
TulsaWorld
Walk-on
 
TulsaWorld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 207
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Think of OU softball, and you might think of Lauren Chamberlain’s home run records or Keilani Ricketts’ prolific strikeout rate. Even now, there’s Paige Parker’s power-pitching dominance and Jocelyn Alo’s emerging pop at the plate.

But behind OU’s past two national titles — and now the Sooners’ quest for a third, starting Friday in the NCAA Norman Regional — is a renewed focus on the fundamentals. That’s always what Gasso has cared about the most.

“We’ve always been focused on defense,” Gasso said. “That’s kind of my pride and joy because I work with them a lot on it. The difference with this team today versus, say, the 2013 team is just power. They had that pretty much anyone in the lineup could hit it out. The focus with this team is hit-and-run, run-and-hit, put the ball in play, squeezes, bunts with two outs — just execution and catching them off-guard and keeping a defense uncomfortable.”
Link
__________________
---
Happy to share Tulsa World's best OU articles/galleries/etc. Please e-mail questions for reporters to web@tulsaworld.com
TulsaWorld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 08:52 AM   #2973
sybarite
National Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,629
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by TulsaWorld View Post
On another board, I indicated that what impressed me most about this team was the defense. I don't know that I have ever seen a softball team that had more great play abilities and refrained from making mistakes as well as this team.

I thought Arnold was the best third baseman I had ever seen, until Romero took over. I expect the hot shots down the line to be handled as though they were simple bounding balls with Sydney on third. It's about the same with Shay at first. I never thought of her as a defensive player until I noticed that she caught the shots down the line with great regularity, adding a good pursuit of pop fouls. She made a simple pickup of a line shot to her backhand in the Big Twelve that stunned me. She just gently turned and took a couple of steps to touch the bag.

Clifton has so much range that she is almost like have a short-fielder in right center. Would it be an exaggeration to suggest that we may eventually see her catch a popup at the right field wall? OK. but how much of one?

Until she injured her hamstring, Arnold always seemed to make the right play.. She's made a couple of mental errors, laying back on slow ground balls that are uncharacteristic, and I don't know what it has to do with her injury. But, she is consistent at what she does. Catch a ground ball, and throw it to first. Life is so simple.

We'll miss Pendley next year. I so often see centerfielders streaking to make a great catch in right or left center. Sometimes, that is because they got a late start or misread the ball at first. They use their speed to recover. Pendley seems to play in slow motion. She gets an early read and glides to the ball. You really don't notice how fast she is. She just makes the right read over and over. I see a little of her in Mendes, but Mendes is still learning.

The defense up the middle with Pendley, Arnold, Clifton, Parker (Lowary), and Wodach is what you hope a defense will be, except that the corners may be even better. College teams just aren't that good on defense. But, the failure of the Auburn defense let us win one title.
sybarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 09:09 AM   #2974
SoonerSpock
Sweet 16
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,873
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by sybarite View Post
You assume the results are accurate because you accept them. I don't. I would insist that the formula be revised. I don't think it can be perfect. But, it can be a lot more useful than it is.

By now, if you haven't noticed, I simply do not accept your premise that everything is as it should be.
Typical you would assume the results are inaccurate because of your unsubstantiated subjective doubts which I mentioned could be resolved with more transparency. Do you not think that the President's and their AD's are not wanting accuracy justification on seedings that impact their financially strapped athletic departments? Moreover getting approximately 130+ schools to bite their tongue and not adamantly complain publicly about an unfair system would require one hell of a conspiracy.

It would also be more logical to assume that member schools are working within the system registering their desires for system enhancements and/or asking questions about what they see as system flaws.

But until you or I present and document a better system we are just ill informed complainants that think we know more about how to evaluate and compare teams for seeding purposes than their hired professionals. Meanwhile the RPI is a proven effective system (over the last decade 11 or 55% of the finalist have been top 4 seeds, 6 or 30% 5-8 seeds, 2 or 10% 9-16 seeds and 1 or 5% unseeded) that will continue to be used for the foreseeable future because their membership supports it.
__________________
Whether you think you can or think that you can't, you are usually right. Henry Ford.

Last edited by SoonerSpock; 05-16-2018 at 11:21 AM.
SoonerSpock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 10:50 AM   #2975
TulsaWorld
Walk-on
 
TulsaWorld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 207
Default Re: Softball

Quote:
Originally Posted by sybarite View Post
On another board, I indicated that what impressed me most about this team was the defense. I don't know that I have ever seen a softball team that had more great play abilities and refrained from making mistakes as well as this team.
I wish this board alerted me when there were quote-replies to posts. I should put that on the request thread

It is quite apparent that this team will make opponents pay for any mistake at any time this postseason --- no top or bottom of the innings off!
__________________
---
Happy to share Tulsa World's best OU articles/galleries/etc. Please e-mail questions for reporters to web@tulsaworld.com
TulsaWorld is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Hosted By: URLJet.com