College Nationals 2006 Women's seedings
Neva Cherniavsky
1) Stanford
2) Colorado
3) Wisconsin
4) UCLA
5) UBC
6) Davis
7) Florida
8) Michigan
9) Georgia
10) Texas
11) Emory
12) Tufts
13) Carleton
14) Swathmore
15) Dartmouth
16) Delaware
These need to be modified to take into account Regionals finish (at the
very least). Here's my stab:
1) Stanford
2) UCLA
3) Colorado
4) Wisconsin
5) Georgia
6) Florida
7) UC-Davis
8) UBC
9) Michigan
10) Emory
11) Dartmouth
12) Tufts
13) Carleton
14) Texas
15) Swathmore
16) Delaware
Yielding the following pools:
Stanford UCLA Colorado Wisconsin
UBC UC-Davis Florida Georgia
Tufts Dartmouth Emory Michigan
Carleton Texas Swathmore Delaware
You could probably shift UBC's seed and Emory's seed so as to avoid
Regionals rematches. Thoughts?
tumbledrylow
but since there are already two strong teams from the AC, it might not
even matter...
tumbledrylow
HG
grill
HG wrote:
> I would put UBC higher.
You can't, unless you put Davis higher, as well. (Not that that would
be wrong, just an FYI)
grill
out of the 5/6 to start with. why not just leave them there (davis 5,
ubc 6) and avoid the regionals rematches, as well?
Neva Cherniavsky
teams that did not qualify for Nationals (UCSD, UW). Davis lost to a team
seeded below them (Tufts) and to teams that did not qualify (Brown, UNC,
Cal).
I also think Florida should be rewarded for a very good season and a
strong showing at Centex. It all depends on how you feel about the AC vs.
the NW. I think the AC showed their strength and depth this year.
william...@gmail.com
Dartmouth this season. They are also higher in the top 25 than the New
England teams (and higher than Carleton, too). I'm curious as to why
that doesn't merit a higher seed for them.
grill
quite strong at regionals.
grill
losses were in games played with a looser rotation to get their rookies
experience (they don't have a B team). In games where they actually
played their studs (see especially v. Cal at sectionals and regionals,
v. UBC and UW at regionals), they've been able to handle fairly strong
teams pretty easily. They basically rolled through a very tough NW
region up until finals (don't let that 9-5 score against Berkeley B
fool you, they were resting all their big guns until 5-5), at which
point they had already qualified for the big show.
They're not the deepest team, but they've got some girls who can play,
no mistake.
Neva Cherniavsky
Dartmouth and Tufts. Plus the reason Delaware has such a low RRI is their
competition this season; Tufts and Dartmouth made the trip to Vegas and
Dartmouth went to Centex, they won some games (e.g. Tufts beat Davis and
Dartmouth beat Georgia) and they gained the right to a higher seed at
Nationals. I am ok with putting Carleton lower since they have had an
unimpressive season so far.
Neva Cherniavsky
probably a significant shift, i.e. they'd probably rather play Wisconsin
than UCLA. Although really, those top four just look nasty.
No one is going to argue Michigan's case? They have beaten Wisconsin,
after all, and had dominating wins over Carleton and Dartmouth at Centex.
Stanford UCLA Colorado Wisconsin
UBC Florida Georgia UC-Davis
Tufts Dartmouth Emory Michigan
Carleton Texas Swathmore Delaware
tumbledrylow
next day, wisconsin beat them in the finals 15-7. plus, michigan has
lost to UCSD, Emory, and Georgia, three teams that Wisconsin has
defeated. Therrrfore, Michigan stays put.
tumbledrylow
Rich Dana
That would avoid a third rematch (Sectionals and regionals) of Georgia
and Emory.
meems
range so I'm not sure our case needs arguing. However, I will jump in
to make sure the info being discussed is complete.
Michigan and Emory are 1-1.
At Queen City Emory d. Michigan 13-12
At Terminus Michigan d. Emory 13-9
-Miriam
UM co-coach
HG
playing them at regionals, my prediction is that they will explode at
nationals and break seed regardless.
Rudy
that UMassacre is a relatively recent tourny, it's location favored New
England teams, and well, you really can't argue head-to-head victories,
I really dont see how Delaware (or Swat, for that matter) can be seeded
below Dartmouth or Tufts.
Neva Cherniavsky
> I really dont see how Delaware (or Swat, for that matter) can be seeded
> below Dartmouth or Tufts.
Really? Who at Nationals has Swat beaten in their undefeated season?
KBarb
Who at nationals has beaten swat?
samth
Umm, Delaware? Who beat Dartmouth and Tufts?
It's certainly the case that Swarthmore played a weaker schedule than
Dartmouth and Tufts. But Tufts has beaten 0 teams at nationals, with
the exception of Dartmouth (who they are automatically behind). And
Dartmouth has one win over a team at nationals besides Tufts. And no
one is saying that Georgia should be behind Dartmouth. So I think the
fair place to seed Dartmouth is *after* the teams they've lost to -
namely Delaware.
sam th
Neva Cherniavsky
grill
before nationals, they're just going to need to deal with being seeded
low. undefeated or not, they haven't played against any of the other
top teams, most of which have been playing against eachother all year
long.
KBarb
not challanging themselves? Do you really think this? Really?
Im just guessing, but maybe its more of a travel budget type thing.
When was the last time you saw a NW, SW, S team flying out to the ME or
NE for a tourney?
Dont bother replying with the expected "but there are no top level
events in the ME or NE" cause thats not really the argument.
Adam Tarr
True, there was in fact no argument at all. The statement "when was
the last time you saw a NW, SW, S team flying out to the ME or NE for a
tourney?" does not argue for anything, since as you point out it is an
obviously absurd statement. It does not support your argument, namely,
that it's more convenient for western and AC teams to play good teams.
And your argument doesn't actually address Neva's argument, that these
teams should not get a high seed simply because they did not challenge
themselves. You seem to be arguing that it wasn't convenient for these
teams to challenge themselves; I agree, but that wasn't her point.
Neva Cherniavsky
KBarb
discussion. I at least kept this post to twenty four words.
Neva Cherniavsky
the drive to these two tournaments.
On Tue, 9 May 2006, KBarb wrote:
Adam Tarr
Well, it's the classic question of overall season versus head-to-head.
Tufts has had a stronger overall season than Dartmouth, Swarthmore, and
Delaware. And Carleton for that matter. The first team with a better
overall season than Tufts is Texas, and that's only by a narrow margin.
But Dartmouth beat Tufts at regionals, and I rate Dartmouth's overall
season as the worst of all (by a narrow margin - better head to head
and common opponents for Swat and UDel trump Dartmouth's slightly
better RRI). If Tufts had won its region I'd probably suggest 12-16 as
Tufts, Carleton, Swat, UDel, Dartmouth. But with the loss, you have to
try to minimize error. Carleton clearly moves up to 12th. For
minimizing mean square error, this leaves two options for 13-16.
Option 1: Swat, Dartmouth, Tufts, Del
Option 2: Dartmouth, Tufts, Swat, Del
I don't really have enough context to judge those. But option 2
eliminates the possibility of regional matchups in crossovers, so...
1) Stanford
2) UCLA
3) Colorado
4) Wisconsin
5/6/7/8) Georgia/Florida/Davis/UBC
9) Michigan
10) Emory
11) Texas
12) Carleton
13) Dartmouth
14) Tufts
15) Swathmore
16) Delaware
Stanford UCLA Colorado Wisconsin
Georgia? Florida? UBC? Davis?
Carleton Texas Emory Michigan
Dartmouth Tufts Swathmore Delaware
samth
Adam Tarr wrote:
> Option 1: Swat, Dartmouth, Tufts, Del
> Option 2: Dartmouth, Tufts, Swat, Del
>
> I don't really have enough context to judge those. But option 2
> eliminates the possibility of regional matchups in crossovers, so...
But your option 1 makes no sense, since Delaware has head to head wins
over Dartmouth and Tufts. Swarthmore is the one with the great record
against not-as-good teams. So I would go for:
Option 3: Swat, Del, Dartmouth, Tufts
Not coincidentally, Rodeny's seeding machine gives these seedings (and
certainly takes into account strength of schedule).
sam th
samth
sam th
KBarb
You are wise beyond your years.
pgw
KBarb wrote:
> That's a whole lot of words for not contributing anything useful to the
> discussion. I at least kept this post to twenty four words.
And to think, if you had only done it right you would have gotten down
to twenty-three ... still one more than me.
Neva Cherniavsky
>> Option 1: Swat, Dartmouth, Tufts, Del
>> Option 2: Dartmouth, Tufts, Swat, Del
>>
>> I don't really have enough context to judge those. But option 2
>> eliminates the possibility of regional matchups in crossovers, so...
>
> But your option 1 makes no sense, since Delaware has head to head wins
> over Dartmouth and Tufts. Swarthmore is the one with the great record
> against not-as-good teams. So I would go for:
His option 1 makes a lot of sense if you quote more than 2 lines, like all
the parts about strength of schedule.
And Delaware can only point to those two games, one of which was a 1 point
win. The rest of their schedule is as weak or weaker than Swat's.
Contrast this with Dartmouth, who went to three out of region tournaments
and has already played against 9 of the 15 teams at Nationals.
maeth
that claiming that Swat would be "rewarded for not challenging itself"
is unfair. While I am not arguing that Swat has had a strong schedule,
for me that was a disapointment, not a goal. We sent in a bid to
Terminus, but were not accepted. We traveled to Edinboro with the hopes
of playing some higher level teams (like Purdue and Ohio), but none of
those teams turned out be Nationals-level. I would have loved to travel
to some of the more competitive tournaments, but lack of funds made
that impossible. Not to mention that we had difficulty getting bids
early in the season. I don't think it is right to punish teams like Del
(who also did not get into to Terminus) and Swat for not having the
money to fly to far-away tournaments.
Mae
Swarthmore
Sleudo
to disagree. Perhaps the swarthmore women (or any team accused of not
challenging itself) do deserve a higher ranking, but I don't see any
way that you can legitimately receive one. It's not a matter of
punishment. You just can't be awarded a higher bid without having
beaten any of the highly ranked RRI teams (Stanford, UCLA, Colorado,
etc.). Maybe the entire women's field is insane for not forking out
money to go hit up that sweet metro east competition, but I doubt it. I
think that the Stanford invite and Centex are the tournaments that must
be considered when ranking the nationals teams. I am certainly open to
the possibility of any of the ME teams going farther in the tournament
than people expect, but you're gonna have to do it by upsetting the
higher ranked teams and proving me and Adam Tarr and anyone else who
hates on the metro east (let's be honest, there are many of us) wrong.
You're in the show, though. No one can take that opportunity from you.
Bulb
Do you punish the ME teams for not getting into Terminus or having the
funds to go to Vegas, or do you reward the NE teams for going to more
competitive tournaments and each getting a solid win?
I think the possible seedings are clear at this point. Someone just
needs to present a good argument for either side of this question.
I say the ME and NE teams ski* for it. And blindfolded, too, so they
don't just always throw rock when they have a teammate next to them.
Bulb
Delaware Sideshow #21
*The game of "skiing" is a variation of RPS where any number of people
stand in a circle, facing inward, and simultaneously ("1, 2, 3, shoot")
throw rock, paper, or scissors with EACH hand (the two hands can throw
different things). Your left hand goes against the right hand of the
person to your left, and your right hand goes against the left hand of
the person to your right (you might need to re-read that sentence). If
both of your hands lose, you are out. Keep playing until one person is
left. The game came to be called "skiing" because your hands do a
motion similar to what one does with their poles while skiing.
P.S. Always throw double scissors. Always.
KBarb
Maybe this justifies them over UDel and Swat (even though they have a
more recent loss to UDel). Tufts, however, has beaten who? I know they
lost to UDel?
How bout Dmouth, Swat, UDel, Tufts.... that might make sense. Anything
putting Udel (and therefore swat) below Tufts though is insane. Just
doesn't make sense.
I guess in the long run it doesn't matter, I just hate reading
completely biased BS. :)
RookieDan
might get confused...
Yes, you are out if both hands lose ON THE SAME TURN. Make that more
clear next time, Bulb.
Adam Tarr
> I guess in the long run it doesn't matter, I just hate reading
> completely biased BS. :)
I'm biased towards Tufts? Good Lord. Hell, for me, would be the "T
for the T in..." cheer on continuous loop.
samth
Sleudo wrote:
> That sucks that you were denied a bid to terminus, but I think I have
> to disagree. Perhaps the swarthmore women (or any team accused of not
> challenging itself) do deserve a higher ranking, but I don't see any
> way that you can legitimately receive one. It's not a matter of
> punishment. You just can't be awarded a higher bid without having
> beaten any of the highly ranked RRI teams (Stanford, UCLA, Colorado,
> etc.).
This argument would make a lot of sense if anyone thought that
Swarthmore (or Delaware, or Tufts, or anyone else) should be seeded
first (as they would in college football, for example). However, no
one is arguing that. What they are arguing is that since Delaware beat
both Dartmouth and Tufts head-to-head, they should be seeded above
them, and therefore below Swarthmore, who beat Delaware and did not
play Dartmouth or Tufts.
It seems that you're arguing that every team that went to Vegas is
automatically better than every team that didn't. That doesn't seem
particularily reasonable.
sam th
Gambler
based on head-to-head results. Remember that Dartmouth beat Georgia,
but no one is arguing to seed Dartmouth ahead of Georgia. Instead,
that win is used as a way to gauge the strength of Dartmouth's team and
indicates that they might be more deserving than a 15th seed. There
are other considerations to factor in. The fact that Tufts beat
UC-Davis, UC-Berkeley, and UC-Santa Barbara, while only losing to Emory
by one point (14-13) also suggests that the team isn't a 16th seed.
The only wins that Delaware has had against teams that have seen good
out-of-region competition are against Tufts (14-13), Cornell, and
Dartmouth (7-2, what kind of game only gets to 7, BTW?). The fact that
Delaware hasn't played anyone else means you really don't have any way
to judge how well they would do against the teams in their pool at
Nationals. Meanwhile, you do have some evidence on the part of
Dartmouth and Tufts.
So yeah, I guess I agree with the strength of schedule arguments...
Swartmore and Delaware were able to qualify for Nationals without
seeing much competition, but I don't think they should be rewarded for
that with a seed higher than teams that did test themselves against
better competition and earned some solid victories along the way.
Dartmouth
Tufts
Swarthmore
Delaware
If Swartmore and Delaware are really stronger than that, then they'll
prove at Nationals...
Jed
> Swarthmore (or Delaware, or Tufts, or anyone else) should be seeded
> first (as they would in college football, for example). However, no
> one is arguing that. What they are arguing is that since Delaware beat
> both Dartmouth and Tufts head-to-head, they should be seeded above
> them, and therefore below Swarthmore, who beat Delaware and did not
> play Dartmouth or Tufts.
>
> It seems that you're arguing that every team that went to Vegas is
> automatically better than every team that didn't. That doesn't seem
> particularily reasonable.
Exactly. Delaware won Head-to-head games over those teams. Strength of
schedule should be less important than head-to-head wins. Since SWAT
cannot be seeded below Delaware since they won Regionals, both teams
should be seeded ahead of Dartmouth and Tufts.
acmo
going to have to upset a higher team either way to get to the
pre-quarters. And actually the way people are suggesting the seeding
now you'd draw Carleton if you were 13th and Emory if you were 15th.
With the way Carleton tends to peak at Nationals, you might actually
have a better shot with the lower seed.
Neva Cherniavsky
They've also beaten UCSB, who beat UCLA at Sectionals and have a one
point loss to Emory.
Neva Cherniavsky
and Michigan:
1) Stanford
2) UCLA
3) Colorado
4) Wisconsin
5) Davis
6) Georgia
7) Florida
8) UBC
9) Emory
10) Michigan
11) Texas
12) Carleton
13) Dartmouth
14) Tufts
15) Swathmore
16) Delaware
Stanford UCLA Colorado Wisconsin
UBC Florida Georgia Davis
Carleton Texas Michigan Emory
Dartmouth Tufts Swathmore Delaware
Could also switch Florida and UBC to avoid the NW regional rematch.
However, UBC did lose to Florida head to head.
Allen Clement
> 14) Tufts
> 15) Swathmore
> 16) Delaware
I'm jumping in late and have no real reason to care about these seedings,
but can you please justify these 4?
Looking at the results from this year, I see that Swat beat Delaware at
regionals and Delaware beat both Tufts and Dartmouth head to head. It
seems pretty clear to me that the order should be
Swarthmore
Delaware
Dartmouth
Tufts
The common arguments I see flying around for something else are "Tufts
beat some higher seeded teams while swarthmore and delaware did not". If
that is a strong enough argument to push Dartmouth and Tufts ahead of
those "higher" teams which should in turn be ahead of Swarthmore, then
great. However, if that argument is only being used to argue putting
dartmouth/tufts ahead of a team (Swarthmore) that beat ALL of their common
opponents, then I have a hard time buying it.
Very simply, Swat beat Delaware at Regionals. Delaware beat both
Dartmouth and Tufts head to head. Dartmouth beat Tufts at regionals.
Neither Dartmouth nor Tufts has beaten Swat or Delaware. Overall it
seems like a pretty straightforward argument to me, and I also find it to
be much more compelling than "Tufts beat some teams that neither Delaware
nor Swat played."
Neva Cherniavsky
might want to look beyond head-to-head results in seeding.
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Gambler wrote:
> I think it's important to remember that you can't always seed strictly
> based on head-to-head results. Remember that Dartmouth beat Georgia,
> but no one is arguing to seed Dartmouth ahead of Georgia. Instead,
> that win is used as a way to gauge the strength of Dartmouth's team and
> indicates that they might be more deserving than a 15th seed. There
> are other considerations to factor in. The fact that Tufts beat
> UC-Davis, UC-Berkeley, and UC-Santa Barbara, while only losing to Emory
> by one point (14-13) also suggests that the team isn't a 16th seed.
It might also suggest that Tufts has been playing less well in
tournaments in April and May (when they lost to Dartmouth twice, and to
Delaware). One should also note that both of Dartmouth's wins over
Tufts came after Tufts main handler tore her ACL.
> If Swartmore and Delaware are really stronger than that, then they'll
> prove at Nationals...
This is just a silly argument. On the strength of that, we could seed
Stanford 16th, and "they'll prove it at Nationals". Either we should
try to get the seedings right, or we shouldn't, but arguing that other
people should accept a set of seedings based on the possibility that
anyone could win is foolish.
sam th
Nick Reeck
everyone's just interested in the seeding game (for which the clear
hierarchy is 1. sectionals/regionals results, 2. head-to-head results
at any point during the season, 3. scores against shared opponents, and
finally 4. quality wins - this is the same in all sports).
And the Mavericks shouldn't have to play the Spurs in round 2, but
sometimes seedings suck. All of these teams will have ample chance to
prove themselves, whichever pool they end up in.
As for the "no head-to-head results against teams at Nationals",
remember when the N.C. State men were the #1 seed in Austin because
they were undefeated? They finished in 10th place. I think when the
above mentioned hierarchy breaks down, you have to place teams with
question marks below ones that have played a tough schedule (see: Utah
football not playing for a national championship despite an undefeated
record two years ago). There are mitigating factors in other sports
too, but that's the way it has always been done across the board.
Strength of schedule counts for a lot, and it should. It's not a
matter of penalizing or rewarding anyone - this is simply the best
information available. Higher seeds should not be awarded based on
conjecture or hearsay.
Besides, the best way to prove you deserved a higher seed is to win.
Allen Clement
you might want to look beyond head to head results.
In this case, the competition faced over the course of the season is so
disjoint that looking at the full season does not add any new information
that is useful for comparison. What it does add is the observation that
"Tufts played UCSB, Swarthmore played Edinboro". How much does that tell
me about comparing Tufts and Swat? It tells me nothing about the teams,
only that Tufts was able to get into/go to a more high profile tournament
than Swat. Congratulations Tufts.
The results of the head to head play between Delaware and Dartmouth/Tufts
does, however, give us a concrete point of reference for comparing the two
teams.
IF there were no available head to head results providing information
between the NE and ME regions, or IF the head to head results were
inconclusive, or IF the schedules were more comparable (i.e. included more
common teams/common tournaments) then I would agree with looking beyond
head to head results. Unfortunately none of these are true in this case.
Gambler
> > prove at Nationals...
>
> This is just a silly argument. On the strength of that, we could seed
> Stanford 16th, and "they'll prove it at Nationals". Either we should
> try to get the seedings right, or we shouldn't, but arguing that other
> people should accept a set of seedings based on the possibility that
> anyone could win is foolish.
Sometimes all you have is the argument that you have to prove it at
Nationals. For instance, UBC has had a stronger season than UC-Davis
overall, but has to be seeded below them at Nationals because of
Regionals results. All you can tell UBC is to "prove it at Nationals"
just like they had to prove they deserved a higher seed than UW at
Regionals.
Ultimately, those bottom four teams are going to have a tough road no
matter what the seeding is. I just have a general aversion to teams
getting higher seeds at Nationals based on only playing mediocre
competion.
Allen Clement
> Why are we spending so much time arguing the basement? I guess
> everyone's just interested in the seeding game (for which the clear
> hierarchy is 1. sectionals/regionals results, 2. head-to-head results
> at any point during the season, 3. scores against shared opponents, and
> finally 4. quality wins - this is the same in all sports).
Agreed that everyone is interested in the seeding game. I also agreee
that with the clear hierarchy. The issue at hand (my opinion) is that
people don't like this hierarchy very much and want to disregard it in
selective (and in my opinion inconsistent) instances.
So changing the subject slightly, is Nick's hierarchy correct/reasonable?
If it is correct, what does that imply for the seeding process?
Allen Clement
I dont see the argument here as basing the seed of Swat/Delaware on
mediocre competition. I see it as basing their seed on Delaware's
victories over Dartmouth and Tufts.
Now, if those games did not exist and we were arguing for Swat/Delaware to
be ahead of Dartmouth Tufts based entirely on RRI while Swat/Delaware had
fattened their RRI by playing the dregs of the metro east and
Dartmouth/Tufts had lower RRIs by virtue of playing at "top notch"
tournaments, , then your argument would make sense and I would agree with
you.
Neva Cherniavsky
> Why are we spending so much time arguing the basement? I guess
> everyone's just interested in the seeding game (for which the clear
> hierarchy is 1. sectionals/regionals results, 2. head-to-head results
> at any point during the season, 3. scores against shared opponents, and
> finally 4. quality wins - this is the same in all sports).
Mainly for the fun of it. But I would also argue that the 12-16
seeding matters to the seeds above, because no one wants that
dangerously underseeded team in their pool. I suspect Pool D will
become the proverbial pool of death if Tufts is given the 16th seed.
For what it's worth, your hierarchy does not precisely jibe with what
the UPA states in its guidelines for coordinators (though the
guidelines are quite flexible):
http://www2.upa.org/coordinators/college/crc_packet#seed
> Besides, the best way to prove you deserved a higher seed is to win.
True dat.
Mortakai
Neva Cherniavsky wrote:
> For what it's worth, your hierarchy does not precisely jibe with what
> the UPA states in its guidelines for coordinators (though the
> guidelines are quite flexible):
> http://www.upa.org/coordinators/college/crc_packet#seed
Isn't that suggestions for seeding at sectionals and regionals, rather
than for the championships? Which *should* have different guidelines.
Allen Clement
> Nick Reeck wrote:
>> Why are we spending so much time arguing the basement? I guess
>> everyone's just interested in the seeding game (for which the clear
>> hierarchy is 1. sectionals/regionals results, 2. head-to-head results
>> at any point during the season, 3. scores against shared opponents, and
>> finally 4. quality wins - this is the same in all sports).
>
> Mainly for the fun of it. But I would also argue that the 12-16
> seeding matters to the seeds above, because no one wants that
> dangerously underseeded team in their pool. I suspect Pool D will
> become the proverbial pool of death if Tufts is given the 16th seed.
Pool D will be the pool of death regardless of who the 16th seed is. the
4,5,9 as the top 3 seeds pretty much guarantees that. Especially since
the lines separating one tier from the next seem to fall around the 5-6
and 11-12 seed for both men and women this year.
>
> For what it's worth, your hierarchy does not precisely jibe with what
> the UPA states in its guidelines for coordinators (though the
> guidelines are quite flexible):
> http://www2.upa.org/coordinators/college/crc_packet#seed
Arguably, the guidelins for coordinators are useless. They boil down to
"finish at previous events should be maintained, and beyond that take
whatever factors you think are reasonable into account, then convince the
national director that those factors are reasonable." No stringent
methodology will precisely jibe with those guidelines.
Allen Clement
Those are suggestions for seeding all "official" tournaments. I think
they should be the same for all three. Why do you think they should be
different at championships than at regionals or sectionals?
rico
believe I am the first of us to have input into this ridiculously
long-winded argument), it doesn't particularly matter for me which seed
at the bottom we receive. Hopefully, whatever happens we will be able
to prove ourselves on our merit in ohio.
The issue which seems to be emerging from this problem is a cycle we
are in as ME teams. As was mentioned before, both swat and sideshow
were turned down bids from terminus despite a decent showing in the
tournament the year before. Whether this is because we are from the
"weak" ME or not, being denied assess to tough competition obviously
hurts us as strong nationals competitors in seedings and also on the
field. This in turn perpetuates our reputation as being weak.
-karin (udel)
jhp...@columbia.edu
Have each team post their picutres and have the rsd community vote for
the best looking team. Then take regional finishes into consideration.
I guarantee that the ud girls will have their way with the pasty NE
ladies. no offense of course...
Bulb
they definitely have no former affiliation with UDel.
Bulb
Delaware Sideshow #21
P.S. Hey Jeff, you gonna come out to Ohio to watch?
Mortakai
> For what it's worth, your hierarchy does not precisely jibe with what
> the UPA states in its guidelines for coordinators (though the
> guidelines are quite flexible):
> http://www.upa.org/coordinators/college/crc_packet#seed
Mortakai wrote:
> Isn't that suggestions for seeding at sectionals and regionals, rather
> than for the championships? Which *should* have different guidelines.
Allen Clement wrote:
> Those are suggestions for seeding all "official" tournaments. I think
> they should be the same for all three. Why do you think they should be
> different at championships than at regionals or sectionals?
Well, I saw the title of each of the four points in the seeding section
quoted being "Seeding for Sectionals and/or Regionals". And that's
where I started my assumption.
The detail of these points include considering things like: input
solicited from team captains including voting, which if used should be
adhered to; and results from last year's series. These make sense when
you're dealing with teams that haven't often done too much prior to the
series, other than a few key tournaments that some go to, and others
don't, and a bunch of disparate mucking about. However, once the series
has gone through sectionals and regionals, last year's results are much
less relevant, so I'd assume are not considered, or at least not
anywhere near the same magnitude. And additionally, I doubt the team
captains are conferred with for the Championship seedings, or again at
least not anywhere near the same magnitude.
And having said all that, I am not involved in this particular process
at all, so could certainly be way out in left field... or should I say
"clogging the lane"... on this. It simply seems logical to me.
Allen Clement
> The detail of these points include considering things like: input
> solicited from team captains including voting, which if used should be
> adhered to; and results from last year's series. These make sense when
> you're dealing with teams that haven't often done too much prior to the
> series, other than a few key tournaments that some go to, and others
> don't, and a bunch of disparate mucking about. However, once the series
> has gone through sectionals and regionals, last year's results are much
> less relevant, so I'd assume are not considered, or at least not
> anywhere near the same magnitude. And additionally, I doubt the team
> captains are conferred with for the Championship seedings, or again at
> least not anywhere near the same magnitude.
They do request captain input. Sending those suggestions in is always
fun. But it's not clear from one year to the next exactly which criteria
are being used to seed the teams.
>
> And having said all that, I am not involved in this particular process
> at all, so could certainly be way out in left field... or should I say
> "clogging the lane"... on this. It simply seems logical to me.
>
I dont think this is clogging the lane. The method for arriving at
seedings is worth discussing, in my opinion, because a consisten method
used at all tournaments would be an improvement over the random collection
of methods that are currently in use.
allen
Neva Cherniavsky
seem like a bias feeding on itself.
Mortakai
Allen Clement wrote:
> ...a consisten method
> used at all tournaments would be an improvement over the random collection
> of methods that are currently in use.
Completely agree with you there!
mccants
Have some consistency at nationals (like quarters showings 75% of the
time) and you will start to be accepted to higher level tournaments.
Or, just start beating teams outside the ME and NE during the regular
season.
QCTU will take you next year, I can almost promise that. vegas and
maybe even stanford invite will take you next year.
Funds? No one has funds. Sell some discs, sell some shirts, have a
bake sale.
We all have (had) to do it.
pizzaslot
this thread for a team that goes O-fer in Pool Play.
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
they were seeded.
sam th
kriw...@gmail.com
Though I could see the merits of the arguments put forth for seeding
the ME teams higher, I felt (and still feel) that the overall strength
of a season and the proven ability to beat top level competition should
take precedence. For example, look at how often Dartmouth and Tufts
played each other (5 times) -- if we only took one game and looked at
it, we'd have a 40% chance of thinking Tufts should be higher than
Dartmouth. Any one data point can be an anomoly (and any score of 7-2
is definitely anomolous). The simple fact is that Dartmouth and Tufts
had stronger seasons. The only top 20 RRI team that SWAT beat ALL
SEASON is Michigan in a meaningless 4v4 game on Saturday morning at the
Championships in which both teams were probably saving energy for
actual placement games later in the day. Before the Championships even
began, Dartmouth had 8 wins over top 20 RRI teams; Tufts had 4.
Dartmouth and Tufts should have been seeded higher than they were, and
they proved this by breaking seed (Dartmouth by the most of any team at
the championship -- open or women's).
In reality this long-winded argument was an important one. It was very
important to the teams in pools C and D that were screwed by having an
underseeded team in among them. Georgia and Michigan were eliminated
from contention before the went to bed on the first night. The best
they could then do was 9th, which they tied for. I don't think people
could have forseen Texas performing so poorly and Carleton collapsing
on Saturday, but (in retrospect) these should have been the teams
matched up against Dartmouth and Tufts in pool play. If the seeding had
been right, Michigan and Georgia would not be leaving with a bad taste
in their mouths over being kept out of a shot in the upper bracket.
Too bad Penn State was screwed by their administration. Maybe then we
would have had Penn State and Swarthmore at the Championships and this
unfortunate UDel head to head win situation would have been avoided.
Ken
kriw...@gmail.com
closest end of final placement range assumed):
1) Stanford
2) UCLA
3) Colorado
4) Wisconsin
5) Davis
6) Georgia (-3)
7) Florida
8) UBC
9) Emory (-2)
10) Michigan
11) Texas (-2)
12) Carleton (-3)
13) Dartmouth (+5)
14) Tufts (+2)
15) Swarthmore (+1)
16) Delaware
In total she was off by 18 places.
The actual rankings were (with same types of numbers in parentheses):
1) Stanford
2) UCLA
3) Colorado
4) Wisconsin
5) Davis
6) Georgia (-3)
7) Florida
8) UBC
9) Michigan
10) Emory (-1)
11) Carleton (-4)
12) Texas (-1)
13) Swarthmore
14) Delaware (-1)
15) Dartmouth (+7)
16) Tufts (+4)
Off by 21 places. The only thing that the actual rankings did better
was switch Emory and Michigan (which seemed like a toss-up anyway). The
Texas/Carleton switch was a wash. All the additional error came from
mis-seeding the last four spots.
Ken