Nationals Seeding (Women's)
FJR
discuss and debate.
1. UC Santa Barbara (SW)
2. Washington (NW)
3. Ottawa (ME)
4. Wisconsin (CN)
5. Stanford (NW)
6. Oregon (NW)
7. Michigan (GL)
8. North Carolina-Wilmington (AC)
9. Colorado (SW)
10. UCLA (SW)
11. North Carolina (AC)
12. Carleton (CN)
13. Southern California (SW)
14. Washington University (SO)
15. St. Louis (SO)
16. Iowa State (CN)
17. Northeastern (NE)
18. Dartmouth (NE)
19. Illinois (GL)
20. Pennsylvania (ME)
A few notes:
I think the seeding is fairly straightforward with the exception of a
few trouble spots.
Washington and Ottawa are interchangeable at 2 and 3. Ottawa won
Centex, so they have a good claim at being seeded higher. They beat
UCSB in Austin, but I think the Burning Skirts have had the more
impressive season and the return of Katie Barry nudges them above the
rest of the field. I don't think that regional considerations factor
into the seedings, but it might be worth having UW as the overall two
seed to avoid a rematch against Oregon in pool play.
Seeds 8-12 are pretty tight. Colorado is 0-2 against the two North
Carolina teams but they are playing at a much higher level now. I
think it's difficult to put both Carolina teams above UCLA. They
haven't played each other, but I think UCLA has had a tougher tourney
schedule and more impressive season. UCLA has a better signature win
(UCLA has a win over UCSB, UNC has a win over Michigan and
Wilmington's best wins this season have been against Colorado, Cal and
the four wins over UNC). Historically, they have performed very well
at the big show. If they had beaten Colorado in the 2-3 game, it
would have been much easier to go with UCLA, UNC-W, UNC, Carleton,
Colorado. But Colorado beat UCLA twice at Regionals and are looking
much stronger than they did in the early half of the season.
Seeds 13-16 are also tight. USC has a considerably higher RRI and UPA
ranking than the two South teams, but lost to St. Louis at Centex. If
St. Louis had won the Southern region, I would have put SLU ahead of
both USC and Wash U. As it is, USC has played a tougher schedule and
have played many of the top seeds tightly (key wins against UNC-W, UBC
and Colorado). Iowa State has the worst RRI of the bunch, but they do
have wins over Wash U. and St. Louis.
Seeds 17-19 are a bit of a jumble. Northeastern is simply a different
team when they have Stephanie Barker and Courtney Moores. Without
them, they took third in the section. With them, they won the New
England region. Despite being 0-2 against Illinois, I think the
Valkyries should be placed above Illinois. Northeastern just beat
Dartmouth who beat Illinois at Centex.
fjr
USC Hellions
yfc...@gmail.com
> Here's an early stab at seeding for the College Championships. Please
> discuss and debate.
>
> 1. UC Santa Barbara (SW)
> 2. Washington (NW)
> 3. Ottawa (ME)
> 4. Wisconsin (CN)
> 5. Stanford (NW)
> 6. Oregon (NW)
> 7. Michigan (GL)
> 8. North Carolina-Wilmington (AC)
> 9. Colorado (SW)
> 10. UCLA (SW)
> 11. North Carolina (AC)
> 12. Carleton (CN)
> 13. Southern California (SW)
> 14. Washington University (SO)
> 15. St. Louis (SO)
> 16. Iowa State (CN)
> 17. Northeastern (NE)
> 18. Dartmouth (NE)
> 19. Illinois (GL)
> 20. Pennsylvania (ME)
>
seems to me that you have washington a bit high. their strength of
schedule this season was not that impressive and they ended up with an
overall lack-luster record against other national teams: 1-1 with
wisconsin, 1-1 with oregon, 1-1 with stanford. sure, it seems like
they're playing great ultimate right now, but there really doesn't
seem to be the evidence that they should be above either ottawa or
wisconsin when both have proven themselves time and time again against
the nationals comp and who are also looking to peak at the right time.
ottawa has wins over ucsb, stanford, ucla, illinois, usc, and
dartmouth, while only losing to oregon. meanwhile, wisconsin has wins
over michigan, stanford, carleton, dartmouth, ucla, wash u, and usc,
is 1-1 with washington, 2-1 with st. louis and lost by one to ucsb.
1. ucsb
2. ottawa
3. wisconsin
4. washington
5. stanford
plus, it'd be interesting to have washington and stanford play in pool
play when it actually matters (both times they've seen each other this
season there hasn't been much on the line--consolation game at
stanford invite and finals of regionals when they'd both already
qualified).
FJR
the tools to win it all. I can't support them being seeded above
Washington.
As the number one team from the toughest region in the country,
Washington should not be underestimated. If Oregon had won the
region, there would be almost no debate about giving them the 2 seed
overall. The Northwest has won the last six College Championships and
the region as a whole was very strong again this year at all of the
big national-scale tourneys (winner and semifinalist at Trouble in
Vegas, finalist and semifinalist at Pres Day, finalist and two
semifinalists at Stanford Invite, semifinalist at Centex). UBC beat
Wisconsin in the third place game at Centex and they didn't qualify
for Nationals.
Do you doubt the power of the Northwest? I repeat. Do you doubt the
power of the Northwest? Do you? Are you feeling lucky?
Don't do it. Just for fun, I picked Washington to be upset at
Regionals. They won the tourney. Stupid me.
Comparing Washington to Wisconsin is pretty easy. Head to head, they
are 1-1. Both games were at Vegas and Element won the more important
matchup. As for computer rankings, that's a wash too. UPA has
Washington higher, and RRI has Wisconsin higher.
If you are going to argue that Washington has had a lackluster record
against the top tier teams (.500 with 3 of the top 5-6 teams does not
constitute lackluster in my book), then by the same token you have to
evaluate their losses against other competition. In Bella Donna's
case, they have lost to St. Louis twice and Vanderbilt once. SLU is a
good team no doubt, but I think everyone would agree that they are in
a tier (or two) below Stanford, Oregon and Santa Barbara. Vanderbilt
is good at the regional level, but is certainly another tier or two
below SLU. Maybe wind was a factor in one or both losses against SLU,
but nonetheless, they lost. Maybe BD didn't have their full personnel
at Terminus. Regardless, Washington's only losses are to teams that
are being considered for one seeds at Nationals (or high two seeds).
You use BD's loss by one to UCSB as an argument in their favor, but
Element also lost to the Burning Skirts by one. That's a wash.
Wisconsin has several quality wins as you've mentioned, but I would
argue that's completely true of Element as well. Oregon > Michigan,
Stanford is undeniably = Stanford, UBC > Carleton, UNC-Wilmington >
Dartmouth, Western Washington > UCLA (2-0).
Comparing Element to Ottawa is a bit tougher (hence why I thought they
were essentially interchangeable). If strength of schedule is a
concern, then Ottawa has just as many (if not more) question marks.
This year, they bulked up their regular season by traveling to two
national-scale tourneys. Winning Centex was huge. They skipped out
on the semis of Pres Day (miserable weather) so it's unclear how they
would have done. They did lose to Oregon (only loss of the season) in
a very surprisingly one-sided loss. That was early in the season
(plus Anne Mercier didn't play that game). At Regionals, they eked
out a close win against an underrated Maryland squad. All of this is
impressive.
In the end, I think what separates the two is that Washington comes
from a superior region. Also, their performance this past weekend is
much more impressive to me than Ottawa's performance at the Metro East
regionals.
As for the fun matchup with Stanford, that is definitely not a reason
to seed Washington #4 overall. It may be a fun consequence of the
seedings, but then again, I don't see why Wisconsin matching up with
Superfly wouldn't be just as fun. Hell, I don't see why Washington
vs. Stanford would be any more interesting than Washington vs.
Oregon. In the end, it doesn't matter. That has nothing to do with
seeding.
On a separate note, I'm betting that two of the number one seeds will
be upset in pool play. They may end up winning the pool anyway, but
there are a lot of good teams to beat out there.
fjr
left...@hotmail.com
> In the end, I think what separates the two is that Washington comes
> from a superior region. Also, their performance this past weekend is
> much more impressive to me than Ottawa's performance at the Metro East
> regionals.
Past performance seems like a good indicator, too - UW made semis last
year, beating Ottawa 15-8, I believe. I'm sure both teams have
changes this year, but given both teams are so close I'd think
historical performance at UPA should be factored.
nathanie...@gmail.com
> Past performance seems like a good indicator, too - UW made semis last
> changes this year, but given both teams are so close I'd think
> historical performance at UPA should be factored.
Past performance is a pretty terrible indicator for the college game
and you explained why in your own argument. Rosters turn over very
quickly at the college level. If I had to pick a tie-breaker for
seeding teams, past performance at the UPA championship would be about
the last one I would choose.
Becky
comparisons between Washington and Wisconsin here's a little math
masters for ya....
Wisconsin:
* Total of 6 losses this season by a combined 8 points. (7
tournaments)
* 4 of their 6 losses were by 1 point, 2 were by 2 points
* Head to Head against Washington they were 1-1, Win by 6 points, Loss
by 2 points = +4 over Washington
(And its bullshit to say Washington won the more important game, if
they play poorly in pool play then why give them a higher seed?)
Washington:
* Total of 4 losses this season by a combined 18 points. (5
tournaments)
* 1 loss of their 4 was by 1 point, 2 were by 6 points, 1 was by 5
points
* See above, their plus/minus vs Wisconsin is - 4
Seems to me like Wisconsin should definately be seeded above
Washington. Georgia for Callahan!
Becky
(I am not affiliated with Wisconsin what-so-ever, I am from Minnesota
and generally hate Wisconsin)
Loren
the proposed #4 seed wisconsin. Not here to debate seeding, but I
think SLU and WUWU will turn a few heads. SLU has the most non-
traditional style in the women's game. WUWU is playing at a high
level. congrats to the ozark ladies. Make some noise and break
seed.
Loren
ohohul...@gmail.com
2. Ottawa – Although they haven’t played against too many teams, they
won Centex with only 9 or 10 girls. That is impressive
3. Washington – Again, they haven’t played too many people but they
have beat Wisco and Oregon
4. Wisconsin
5. Sanford
6. Oregon – These three teams can go interchangeably I feel. Oregon
has beaten Stanford, UCLA and Colorado but has lost to Stanford and
Washington while Wisconsin has both beaten and lost to Washington
while beating Stanford as well. However, Wisconsin has lost to SLU
twice and once to Vanderbilt – someone who is not even at Nationals.
Wisconsin has an impressive record but key losses as well
7. Michigan – Pretty set at this seed. Look for possible upsets only
if playing to their textbook game.
8. Colorado – Beaten UCLA twice and had a close game with Stanford
9. UNCW – Did beat Colorado but lost to Michigan more than Colorado
did and lost to USC as well
10. UCLA – Lost to Colorado but beat UCSB. Although seeded lower –
look for this team to rise in the seedings
11. Wash U – Beaten SLU twice
12. SLU – Lost to WUWU but have beaten Wisconsin, USC, and Carleton.
This should be an interesting team to watch
13. UNC – Seem to have gotten a few lucky wins but got dominated twice
by UNCW
14. USC – Close games with UCLA and beat UNCW
15. Carleton – Win during windy Centex over Michigan, but have lost to
UNC and Iowa State as well
16. Illinois – Have not really played too many on the Nationals level
but have the talent to give teams a good game
17. Iowa State – They did beat WUWU and Carleton but lost to Carleton
at Regionals
18. Northeastern – Although they did beat Carleton and Dartmouth, they
lost to a few non-Nationals teams
19. Dartmouth – They have beaten Iowa State and Illinois and seem to
be on the rise towards the end of the season
20. Pennsylvania – They have nothing to lose and can only go up and
surprise teams
FJR
I was crafting a response, but my buddy Strong Bad really wanted to
jump in and offer his two cents on your case for Wisconsin over
Washington. I was understandably hesitant, but he gave me a case of
Sandalwood-scented candles. A very kind cartoon drawing and
perpetrator of bribery he is.
------
Dear Daz-Beckistan,
Thank you so very much for jumping into this here debate. I very much
like the irony of a Minnesotan supporting the team that she generally
(and not specifically) hates. What will happen next? Trojans
supporting Bruins? Carrots chasing donkeys? Whatever the case is,
you make the previous generation very proud with your nuances of Kurt
Cobain-osity.
Speaking of previous generations and non sequiturs, I mainly want to
address this magical math that you are peddling door-to-door. I am
intrigued... very Very VERY intrigued. The last time I was so very
Very VERY intrigued was when Billy Mays appeared on my front door to
sell me reusable toilet paper (immersed in self-cleaning Oxy Clean you
know the stuff that is powered by the very air that we breathe).
Yes, it seemed like a magical product but it was all jumped up and
full of poop. That leads me to your math skillz...
------
Sorry, I had to pull the plug on SB there.
I think what my cohort is trying to say is that you're throwing a
bunch of numbers out there with almost no consideration to the quality
of teams that they faced at tourneys and in their losses.
1) The number of losses (and margin of defeat in those losses) that
they have on the season is irrelevant without considering who they
lost to. Element's losses were to Stanford (consolation game),
Oregon, Wisconsin and Santa Barbara. BD's losses were to Santa
Barbara, Washington, UBC, St. Louis (twice) and Vanderbilt. The
margin of defeat in those games isn't nearly as important as who was
involved.
2) Regarding Element and BD's head-to-head matchups, I think most
people would agree with the following:
a) that was a long time ago in crappy conditions,
b) regardless of who won when, the Vegas games are a poor predictor
for how they would do against each other now,
c) it's not BS to say that UW won the more important game -- they won
the finals; whether that means much of anything now, that's something
else,
d) the point margins don't mean all that much, and
e) the split games indicates that they were pretty even teams back
then.
3) Past performance is not a primary consideration but it also doesn't
mean zilch. In fact, the UPA makes it pretty explicit that results
from last year's Series can be factored into seeding consideration.
I'm not sure that it's very helpful in the Washington vs. Wisconsin
debate, but if it did mean anything, it would obviously be a
consideration in Element's favor.
4) You still ignore the Regional argument. One area where past
performance does matter quite a bit is how regions have done at the
College Championships. The Northwest has been dominant. They have
been unquestionably better than the other regions. Sure, things
change from year to year, but for the past six years, they have come
out on top. I think this matters a lot. You have to go back to 2000
to find a year when the NW didn't have one team in the finals. To
find a year that they didn't have a team in the semis, you have to go
back to 1990 when there were only 5 regions. The NW teams have
continued to be very strong this year, and I think it makes it really
difficult to not give the top team from the region one of the top two
seeds.
Of course, I hope that this is the year that the Southwest takes down
everyone else, but give props to the Ultimate-industrial complex when
props are due.
fjr