central mixed results(teams going to natties)
little
1.carlton
2.kaze
3.blah
that's all i got from a team member...maybe someone else can post more later...
little andy
Josh
to natties on sunday. Since Carleton and Blah were both in the same
pool on Saturday (and blah lost to carleton) Blah was second in their
pool. Since the format put the top 4 teams (winners of each pool)
straight into a top bracket where the losers drop down to play the
winners of the 2nd, and 3rd seeds from each pool it makes it a tough
road for whoever wants to take 3rd. So Blah then had to beat 3ML
(nationals qualifiers last year), Chad Larson Experience (#1 seed, #1
at tune up), Hot Action (nationals qualifiers last year), ummm that
might be it or there might have been one or two more, but overall, a
well deserved tough road to get the bid for Blah.
Unfortunately I don't have all the standings either.
Josh Thornton
little...@hotmail.com (little) wrote in message news:<e14d34f7.03101...@posting.google.com>...
Louis
> So Blah then had to beat 3ML
> (nationals qualifiers last year), Chad Larson Experience (#1 seed, #1
> at tune up), Hot Action (nationals qualifiers last year),
This schedule is incomplete. Blah had to win out by consecutively
beating a 3 seed, Flaming Moe, 3ML, CLX, and then Hot Action.
By most accounts, Blah took and held a lead in each game relatively
easily with the exception of the Moe game in which they finished the
game on a 4-1 run to win 11-10 at the cap.
Incidently, Moe's only other loss was 11-10 to Kaze in pool play, also
at the cap.
The other noteworthy story from the Mixed division schedule: Hot
Action lost in the final to Carleton/Whamo/Phoboeromys pattersoni.
After going up 5-4 to defend 2nd, Kaze scored 6 straight on the way to
win 12-9 at the cap. Hot Action then lost again to the red hot,
more-people-than-a-Chicago-suburb Blah.
And as an observation, it seems like a very strange schedule in which
one team can make it to the finals, but end up 4th, another team can
lose only to the second and third place teams (each by 1 point) and
finish 7th, and yet another team can win only pool play games (vs. 8,
10, and 15 seeds) and finish 5th.
- Joe's brother
P.S. Would this be the Central Mixed Top 8 Final Standings?
1. Carleton/Whamo/Phoboeromys pattersoni
2. Kaze
3. Blah
4. Hot Action
5. CLX
6. 3ML
7. Flaming Moe
8. Xolo
Adam Tarr
> one team can make it to the finals, but end up 4th, another team can
> lose only to the second and third place teams (each by 1 point) and
> finish 7th, and yet another team can win only pool play games (vs. 8,
> 10, and 15 seeds) and finish 5th.
Those sorts of issues are not really important. If the format is 16/3,
then the concern is getting the right three. All of those teams
demonstrated that they were worse than three teams, so who cares where
they finish?
Brian P. Canniff
"Adam Tarr" <atarr...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:3F8EB142...@purdue.edu...
Similarly, the order between 2/3 isn't as vital as making sure that the
2,3,6 problem you illustrated gets a chance to resolve properly (and it
did). The issue of 2/3 finish was a known problem but benefits appear to
outweigh drawbacks.
Rachel Erickson
First off, this format does not give each team an equal chance to make
it to the semis (thefore finals or top 3). I realize there can never
be a truly equal chance, but I'd settle for something close. Blah's
incredibly long battle to get in for a chance at 3rd was because they
were in the same pool as Whamo. A team with less players may not have
been able to beat Hot Action after 3 games against tough if not for
thier huge roster. This would not be because Blah is a lesser team,
but because they happened to be in the pool with the surprise 1 seed.
This huge advantage given to teams with high seeds makes it hard to
say wich teams earned the top three, and which teams never had a shot.
Secondly, everybody that did not finish in the top 3 and plans to play
next year cares. The seedings at sectionals are generally based on
play at the previous years series. And if you think seeding doesn't
matter, then you missed the entire point of these last posts.
Finally, the format also has other issues. The format did not really
determine the final seedings of the top 3 teams very well. Kaze and
Blah lost 1 game each to Whamo. Whamo is the undisputed winner,
however, Kaze and Blah never played each other to determine who should
be 2nd and who 3rd.
Rachel
Adam Tarr
> First off, this format does not give each team an equal chance to make
> it to the semis (thefore finals or top 3).
Just because being in the same pool as the top team keeps you from
making semis, doesn't mean you don't have a fair shot at top three. You
_do_ miss a shot at top two, as I noted in my other post.
> I realize there can never
> be a truly equal chance, but I'd settle for something close. Blah's
> incredibly long battle to get in for a chance at 3rd was because they
> were in the same pool as Whamo. A team with less players may not have
> been able to beat Hot Action after 3 games against tough if not for
> thier huge roster.
Maybe. On the other hand, we have people complaining who say it's
unfair that Hot Action (or other teams like U. Mass at NE college
regionals) have to be subjected to a double backdoor game after playing
in an intense finals and an intense backdoor game. Which is harder on a
team? That is of course impossible to say, but history has been very
kind to teams playing more games, coming out of the backdoor.
> This would not be because Blah is a lesser team,
> but because they happened to be in the pool with the surprise 1 seed.
That is of course correct, but it would have screwed Blah to some degree
in just about any format. In the 16/3 bracket format, for instance,
Blah would have been "upset" by Whammo in the quarters, and would have
had to fight through an extra round in the backdoor.
> This huge advantage given to teams with high seeds makes it hard to
> say wich teams earned the top three, and which teams never had a shot.
Not so. Show me the team that didn't have a shot. Every team that
didn't qualify lost to the top three three teams either directly or by
extension.
> Secondly, everybody that did not finish in the top 3 and plans to play
> next year cares. The seedings at sectionals are generally based on
> play at the previous years series.
Having a nice set of final results is of course nice. And I'm willing
to stand by those final results, except that some teams being ranked one
spot too high or too low. But if we work extremely hard to get good
differentiation between, say, the 5th and 6th positions, this will
detract from our ability to differentiate between the 3rd and 4th
positions, which is of course the most important divider in this format.
> And if you think seeding doesn't
> matter, then you missed the entire point of these last posts.
Uh... I did not miss the point. I'm guessing you don't know me?
> Finally, the format also has other issues. The format did not really
> determine the final seedings of the top 3 teams very well. Kaze and
> Blah lost 1 game each to Whamo. Whamo is the undisputed winner,
> however, Kaze and Blah never played each other to determine who should
> be 2nd and who 3rd.
Yes, I recognized this in another post. One could argue (although the
argument only applies to this very specific case) that Kaze avoided
Whammo in pool play by virtue of beating Blah in the finals of sectionals.
-Adam
allen
> Rachel Erickson wrote:
>
> > First off, this format does not give each team an equal chance to make
> > it to the semis (thefore finals or top 3).
>
> Just because being in the same pool as the top team keeps you from
> making semis, doesn't mean you don't have a fair shot at top three. You
> _do_ miss a shot at top two, as I noted in my other post.
But if the top 3 teams end up in the same pool, only 2 of them can
advance. Extremely unlikely seedings, but still possible.
Adam Tarr
> But if the top 3 teams end up in the same pool, only 2 of them can
> advance. Extremely unlikely seedings, but still possible.
True, but we considered this and decided it was just too unlikely to
worry about.
Louis
And regardless, even if this were to happen, it would not be the
tournament format at fault; it would be the flawed seeding. If somehow
2 of the top 3 teams were the 8 and 10, 7 and 9, 6 and 12, or 5 and 11
seeds, there would have to be a notably significant lapse in judgment.
- Joe's brother
allen
Not necessarily lapse of judgement, but the effects of a well-balanced
region and numerous sectional "upsets". Look at Northwest mixed this
year -- The teams that advanced were seeded 1, 6, 11 (12?) going into the
tournament. Not incomprehensible that they could have been in the same
pool.
As a side note: seedings are inherently flawed, good formats correct
for bad seedings.
allen
Louis
> Not necessarily lapse of judgement, but the effects of a well-balanced
> region and numerous sectional "upsets". Look at Northwest mixed this
> year -- The teams that advanced were seeded 1, 6, 11 (12?) going into the
> tournament. Not incomprehensible that they could have been in the same
> pool.
>
> As a side note: seedings are inherently flawed, good formats correct
> for bad seedings.
>
>
> allen
Great point. And I completely agree with you guys; getting the
correct top 3 should be the most important consideration -- even if it
can come at the expense of a team finishing below its capacity (even
in the top 3!). It's far more detrimental for the second best team to
finish 4th than the fourth best team to finish 7th.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
- Joe's brother