2006 Mixed Club Nationals Seedings

[drpu...@gmail.com]

Just getting the ball rolling:

1 NW1 Brass Monkey - defending champs
2 SW1 Bad Larry - top 4 finish last year
3 NW2 Mischief - 4-2 vs. Brass
4 SW2 Gendors - wins vs. top 3 teams
-- could see some argument for switching 3 and 4

5 MA1 AMP
6 NE1 Slow White
-- cant get much closer than these two teams. Amp is 2-1 HtH, and is
2-0 vs. Puppet. Slow is 0-2 vs. Puppet. Seems to give edge to AMP.

7 CN1 Mr. Briefcase
8 CN2 Flaming Moe
-- another close one. Briefcase 2-1 HtH. Common opponent wins are
close.

9 NE2 Puppet Regime
-- puppet has to be below Slow White. Seems like they cant be above
the previous two though.

10 NW3 Whor$hack
-- last year's runner up. could see them here, or all the way up at
#5. Leave em here for now.

11 MA2 Hooray
-- break through with huge win over Black Molly at regionals. big wins
vs. AMP earlier in the year.

12 SO1 Rival
-- not sure where to put these guys. Split two games with AMP way back
at Terminus, but those games are probably meaningless.

13 NW4 Flycoons
14 CN3 The Salsa Police
15 NE3 Tandem
16 SO2 Deliverance

The pools would look like this:

NW1 Brass Monkey (1) SW1 Bad Larry (2) NW2 Mischief (3) SW2 Gendors
(4)
CN2 Flaming Moe (8) CN1 Mr. Briefcase (7) NE1 Slow White (6) MA1 AMP
(5)
NE2 Puppet Regime (9) NW3 Whor$hack (10) MA2 Hooray (11) SO1 Rival
(12)
SO2 Deliverance (16) NE3 Tandem (15) CN3 The Salsa Police (14) NW4
Flycoons (13)

Anyway, thats my first shot at it. I'm sure i've misplaced a team or
two.

Thoughts?

doc
AMP #11

[Bill Mill]

> 5 MA1 AMP
> 6 NE1 Slow White
> -- cant get much closer than these two teams. Amp is 2-1 HtH, and is
> 2-0 vs. Puppet. Slow is 0-2 vs. Puppet. Seems to give edge to AMP.
>

http://www4.upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?page=3&team=2468&team=2467

Slow is 1-2 vs. Puppet, they beat them 15-9 at regionals in the
championship game. Also Slow White has a higher RRI, mainly because
they won Chicago Heavyweights, where they beat Mr. Briefcase in the
championships (but lost to them in the opening round). They also beat
Flaming Moe in that tournament.

I give the slim edge to Slow based on their recent Nationals-caliber
wins and victory in Chi-town. Amp didn't win Chesapeake, despite a
weaker field.

(bias alert: I have friends on Slow White.)

-Bill Mill
bill.mill at gmail.com
Medicine Men #99

[disc]

Salsa Police gets the 4th place, err 3rd place from central.

"whose the dodo man???"

Disc

[drpu...@gmail.com]

Whoops... 1-2 vs. Puppet... my bad.

RRI = trash talk fodder, little more.

Yup. Like i said, could see these going either way.

Whor$hack seeding still worries me. Are they the same team as last
year?

[Bill Mill]

drpu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Whoops... 1-2 vs. Puppet... my bad.
>
> RRI = trash talk fodder, little more.

sin duda. That's what we're up to, right? :)

>
> Yup. Like i said, could see these going either way.

Agreed - I think Slow White on the body of work, but ignoring
head-to-head wins sucks.

I bitched earlier this year when a certain open team from NY was seeded
above us despite our head-to-head victory. Was it right? I'm still not
sure.

>
> Whor$hack seeding still worries me. Are they the same team as last
> year?
>

Who cares? 2 victories over nationals-bound teams *this* year is all
that should matter for this year's seeding. (Brass Monkey on Aug 6, 0-3
since, and Flycoons at regionals).

You could argue Whor$hack #9, Puppet #10 based on the strength of the
NW, but I think I like where you've got them.

That said, I still wouldn't want them in my pool.

[drpu...@gmail.com]

Giving props to Whor$hack, and the nod to Slow White.

1 NW1 Brass Monkey
2 SW1 Bad Larry
3 NW2 Mischief
4 SW2 Gendors
5 NW3 Whor$hack
6 NE1 Slow White
7 MA1 AMP
8 CN1 Mr. Briefcase
9 CN2 Flaming Moe
10 NE2 Puppet Regime
11 MA2 Hooray
12 SO1 Rival
13 NE3 Tandem
14 NW4 Flycoons
15 CN3 The Salsa Police
16 SO2 Deliverance

NW1 Brass Monkey (1) SW1 Bad Larry (2) NW2 Mischief (3) SW2 Gendors
(4)

CN1 Mr. Briefcase (8) MA1 AMP (7) NE1 Slow White (6) NW3
Whor$hack (5)
CN2 Flaming Moe (9) NE2 Puppet Regime (10) MA2 Hooray (11) SO1
Rival (12)
SO2 Deliverance (16) CN3 The Salsa Police (15) NW4 Flycoons (14)
NE3 Tandem (13)

Could see that too.

[cg]

why are gendors below mischief? have highest rri and beat them in
their one head to head matchup?

[drpu...@gmail.com]

I just went with a feeling there. Mischief is 4-2 vs. the defending
champs. Gendors are 1-1. Just my opinion.

[drpu...@gmail.com]

Hey, i agree about the whole "this year is this year" thing... but it
seems that much emphasis is placed on historical performance when these
seedings get done. So, 2nd place at natties last year might mean
something.

[cg]

there is also the emphasis on avoiding regionals rematches. look at
last years pools, no regionals rematches. shazam was the previous
winner, got seeded 3rd and finished 9th.

i think taking in previous performance is mildly important, but its
easy for that precendent to be wrong.

[Adam Tarr]

drpu...@gmail.com wrote:

> I just went with a feeling there. Mischief is 4-2 vs. the defending
> champs. Gendors are 1-1. Just my opinion.

I think logically, you either have to go:

#2 Mischief
#3 Larry
#4 Gendors

or

#2 Larry
#3 Gendors
#4 Mischief

By selectively focussing on the Mischief/Larry or Gendors/Mischief
comparisons, you can justify either of these orderings. The more
useful thing to do is to look at the overall ordering and which one of
these makes the most sense in terms of deviation from an ideal
ordering.

I think I wouild go with the first of these two orderings. Don't hate
me Larry, remember that I had you picked for #1 at regionals...

[ultimatep...@gmail.com]

Far be it for me to say that this seeding flies
in the face of history, but let us consider,
for one second, results from other years.

the SW has not placed more than one
team in quarters in recent history. last
year is the first year that they've placed
a semifinalist for a long long time, what
happened in that semis? a 15-9 loss.
has anyone argued that bad larry is
significantly better this year to deserve
a move up a place/two places...?

the NW took 1-2 last year. #1 from last
year has been consistently beaten by
the NW #2 finisher this year, which seems
to indicate that #2, mischief, is playing at that level
this year. NW #1, and last year's overall
#1, may be better this year.

the central has not placed two teams
in quarters in recent history. every year
there is some talk about how they are
especially strong, but other than the CLX
exception, a team that won their regionals
handily, and WHO WON'T EVEN BE AT
NATIONALS, the central has not historically,
and despite each team's own claims, shown much
strength at nationals. So putting TWO
teams in quarters, neither of which is
CLX, seems something of a mystery
to me.

so hey, maybe gendors will play to a
semis finish, but the SW doesn't deserve
two top seeds. sorry, but no. last
year's bad larry finish does merit the
#3 or #4 seed, sure. but not both.
let's give the other spot, earned by the Central
last year but abdicated by CLX, to the
NE, who had teams at 5 and 6 last year.

So something like,
1. Brass Monkey
2. Mischief
3. Bad Larry
4. Slow White

etc.

if you really feel that you must, and it
does seem like that, throw the gendors
in the second 4, yourselves (amp),
whoreshack probably belongs some
where between 7 and 10, and, uh,
sure, a central team. but then you
are screwing the south, who has
had at least a quarters finisher
for a long long time, so that means
drop either whoreshack, the central
team, or the sw2 out of the top
eight. whore is not the team that they
were last year, it is true, and let's
avoid the brass rematch at 7or8, so
sure, drop them out.

drpu...@gmail.com wrote:
> 1 NW1 Brass Monkey - defending champs
> 2 SW1 Bad Larry - top 4 finish last year
> 3 NW2 Mischief - 4-2 vs. Brass
> 4 SW2 Gendors - wins vs. top 3 teams

> 5 MA1 AMP
> 6 NE1 Slow White

> 7 CN1 Mr. Briefcase
> 8 CN2 Flaming Moe

> 9 NE2 Puppet Regime
> 10 NW3 Whor$hack

> 11 MA2 Hooray
> 12 SO1 Rival

> 13 NW4 Flycoons
> 14 CN3 The Salsa Police
> 15 NE3 Tandem
> 16 SO2 Deliverance

1

[qd...@hotmail.com]

ultimatep...@gmail.com wrote:

> the SW has not placed more than one
> team in quarters in recent history.

'04 had DTL and BL in quarters. Both lost.

> last year is the first year that they've placed
> a semifinalist for a long long time,

I think High Plains was the most recent semifinalist before that, and
that was probably in 2001.

> so hey, maybe gendors will play to a
> semis finish, but the SW doesn't deserve
> two top seeds. sorry, but no. last
> year's bad larry finish does merit the
> #3 or #4 seed, sure. but not both.

What does Gendors winning Labor Day merit? They beat NW1 and NW2. It
seems that you give little if any weight to this year's results.
Or maybe ask this: if Gendors had won the SW, wouldn't they deserve
the overall #1 seed?

I think the bigger seeding problem is not at the top, but in the middle
and the bottom. No one east of Kansas has played anyone west of
Kansas. There your "historically this region has done XYZ" is better
because there are no results from this year.

And no one has mentioned that 'Lex Bellows appears to be on Puppet
Regime. That must be taken into consideration in any seeding
discussion.

And I must note that it still feels weird to talk about something as
trivial as seeding when it comes to Gendors. I mean no disrespect.

Q
Nationals Pool Fodder
#10

[qd...@hotmail.com]

ultimatep...@gmail.com wrote:

> the SW has not placed more than one
> team in quarters in recent history.

'04 had DTL and BL in quarters. Both lost.

> last year is the first year that they've placed

> a semifinalist for a long long time,

I think High Plains was the most recent semifinalist before that, and

that was probably in 2001.

> so hey, maybe gendors will play to a

> semis finish, but the SW doesn't deserve
> two top seeds. sorry, but no. last
> year's bad larry finish does merit the
> #3 or #4 seed, sure. but not both.

What does Gendors winning Labor Day merit? They beat NW1 and NW2. It

[Adam Tarr]

ultimatep...@gmail.com wrote:

> the NW took 1-2 last year. #1 from last
> year has been consistently beaten by
> the NW #2 finisher this year, which seems
> to indicate that #2, mischief, is playing at that level
> this year. NW #1, and last year's overall
> #1, may be better this year.

Or, it could suggest that #1 from last year has regressed. Now, I am
not, not, not, not saying that I know or even suspect this to be true,
but it is an equally valid conclusion based on what you state.

And, just to state what should be to obvious to bear mentioning, but
nevertheless clearly does need to be mentioned: a good way to decide
between these two scenarios (or something in between) would be to look
at how these teams did against other teams this year. Like, say,
Gendors.

[Hoffman]

In 2003 both Chad Larson (3/4) and Blah(6th) made quarterfinals. They
are both in the central. Seems pretty recent to me.

-Hoffman

[patg]

I was wondering about this - Why is CLX not going to nationals? It
appears from score reporter they won Regionals. Can anyone explain?

[drpu...@gmail.com]

Taking various comments into account:

1 NW1 Brass Monkey
2 NW2 Mischief
3 SW1 Bad Larry
4 SW2 Gendors
5 NE1 Slow White
6 NW3 Whor$hack

7 MA1 AMP
8 CN1 Mr. Briefcase

9 SO1 Rival
10 CN2 Flaming Moe
11 NE2 Puppet Regime
12 MA2 Hooray

13 NW4 Flycoons
14 CN3 The Salsa Police

15 SO2 Deliverance
16 NE3 Tandem

Pools:
NW1 Brass Monkey (1)
CN1 Mr. Briefcase (8)
SO1 Rival (9)
NE3 Tandem (16)

NW2 Mischief (2)
MA1 AMP (7)
CN2 Flaming Moe (10)
SO2 Deliverance (15)

SW1 Bad Larry (3)
NW3 Whor$hack (6)
NE2 Puppet Regime (11)

CN3 The Salsa Police (14)

SW2 Gendors (4)
NE1 Slow White (5)
MA2 Hooray (12)
NW4 Flycoons (13)

Not sure how anyone can feel more screwed than anyone else here. Tough
games all around.

Thats all i got.

[Adam Tarr]

A useful idea may be to just look at:

- the 6 western teams, upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?page=3&tourn=2992
- the 8 central/MA/NE teams,
upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?page=3&tourn=3033
- the 2 southern teams (not much to look at actually,
Rival>Deliverance)

Within these sets you have meaningful data, but between them the best
data we have is past nationals results.

So, seed each set, then merge them in a way that jives with past
nationals results, and avoids regional rematches when in doubt.

[pizzaslot]

Uh.....CLX did not make Nationals in 2003.

http://www4.upa.org/club/2003_championships/teams.html

[aliss...@yahoo.com]

>
> And no one has mentioned that 'Lex Bellows appears to be on Puppet
> Regime. That must be taken into consideration in any seeding
> discussion.
>

listen to your friend 'Lex Bellows, he's a cool dude, he knows what
he's talking about

[ultimatep...@gmail.com]

< between these two scenarios (or something in between) would be to
look
< at how these teams did against other teams this year. Like, say,
< Gendors.

i don't disagree, either with the it-is-strange-to-talk-abouot
seeding with the gendors and the this year results. if the
gendors had won their most recent tourney, i'd say throw
them in that 1-2-3 list somewhere, who knows where.

on the second point, i would note that the winner of labor
day has often not been the winner of the championships,
even though one of the labor day teams is usually in
the finals, but not the winner. take last year for instance.
or the year before that. or two years before that.

also, let's look at labor day a little more closely.
how did bad larry do at labor day? a loss to a
team that finished lower than 6th at NW regionals.
but then they go on to beat gendors at their regionals.
that leaves open questions that do not necessarily
merit two top four seeds for the soutwest.

let's give the other regions their due, and
ONE spot in the top four seeds...

split the difference with me, if you must, and put
gendors at 5. then they can earn that top spot
without disrupting seedings too much. i say
this as much as a cautionary against assuming
regional superiority without any cross-country
play as much as anything else.

as far as 2003 and Central teams is concerned,
blah at 6 and phob at 9/10 is not two teams in the
quarters. . it is true that last year both CLX and
woodchuck were in the top 8 of spirit rankings.
sure, i'll give you that. carleton probably finishes
high in the spirit rankings every year, and CLX
runs a fun ship. fun fun fun.

the dtl and bad larry losses in quarters in 03 is correct.
i was wrong about that... bad larry has been
very consistent over a lot of years. yes sir ree.

[jt]

Worlds instead.

[ultimatep...@gmail.com]

stop looking, for a second, at the individual
teams, and instead look at regional placement,
and you'll see that the NW finished just as
it should have last year, with 1, 2, 9, 13.
It went in with the 1, 3, 12, 15 seeds so
that worked out about right. 2004 finish
1, 3, 9, predicting accurately the 1,2,9.

last year, everyone was hyped up about a. hot and
sweaty from the south, and b. meth from the midwest.
when we looked at historical placement of teams from those
regions, we found that we had reason to doubt
them (three central teams seeded in the top 9!?,
that was obviously ridiculous ), but we seeded
regardless of those doubts (- real finish, 3, 10, 16,
and pretty much what history would tell us would
happen, and 7,11 for the south vs. the seeded
2, 6).

my suggestion is that one of the SW teams is
the hot and sweaty of this year. of course,
george is the ONE who stands over us all, and
i have no horses in the race this year, so do
and say what you will, and george will decide.
just remember, george, hot and sweaty.

also, let us not forget that the true US
championships will be determined at Worlds this year,
what with CLX attending only that event. who will
be the donner party of 2006? i vote for rfbf,
because, hey, retro.

[Elizabeth D Murray]

These are the "confirmed" teams going to Perth:
http://www.wucc2006.org/?p=registered_teams

Bad Larry
Slow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Brass Monkey
The Chad Larson Experience
Whor$hack
Mischief
7 Express
Red Fish Blue Fish
Six Trained Monkeys

These are the teams going to Sarasota:
http://www.upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=71&id=2182

CN1 Mr. Briefcase
CN2 Flaming Moe
CN3 The Salsa Police
MA1 AMP
MA2 Hooray
NE1 Slow White
NE2 Puppet Regime
NE3 Tandem
NW1 Brass Monkey
NW2 Mischief
NW3 Whor$hack
NW4 Flycoons
SO1 Rival
SO2 Deliverance
SW1 Bad Larry
SW2 Gendors

On 10/9/06 4:18 PM, in article
1160432296.0...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,

[friz2yo]

Things are all messed up because:

(a) Brass Monkey beat Mischief in the NW Regional finals after Mischief
had been beating BM regularly
(b) Bad Larry beat Gendors in the SW Regional finals after the Gendors
had been playing better all season
(c) No East Coast/Central teams have played West Coast/West teams.
(d) The Southern teams haven't played anybody besides themselves.

Thus, I think it is fair to use "historical" considerations when
comparing inter-Region teams. History tells us that the NW is good (1,
2 last year), the Central and SW each have one strong team (3/4 last
year), the NE is strong (5, 6 last year), and the South and
Mid-Atlantic are competitive but not awesome (highest finish 7, 8,
respectively last year). Thus, I think it is fair to give Mischeif
(NW2) one of the top 4 spots, one to Bad Larry (SW1), and one to Slow
White (NE1). With this in mind, and tweaking seedings to avoid
Regional rematches:

1 Brass Monkey (NW1)
2 Bad Larry (SW1)
3 Slow White (NE1)
4 Mischief (NW2)
5 Gendors (SW2)
6 Mr. Briefcase (CN1)
7 Whor$hack (NW3)
8 AMP (MA1)
9 Rival (SO1)
10 Puppet Regime (NE2)
11 Flaming Moe (CN2)
12 Hooray (MA2)
13 The Salsa Police (CN3)
14 Flycoons (NW4)
15 Deliverance (SO2)
16 Tandem (NE3)

I wanted to put Whor$hack at 9, but this would put them in Brass
Monkey's pool; I gave them the benefit of the doubt and bumped them up
to 7 rather than down. The pool breakdown:

1 Brass Monkey
8 Amp
9 Rival
16 Tandem

2 Bad Larry
7 Whor$hack
10 Puppet
15 Deliverance

3 Slow White
6 Mr. Briefcase
11 Flaming Moe
14 Flycoons

4 Mischief
5 Gendors
12 Hooray
13 Salsa Police

Knowing most of these team, I wouldn't want to be in *any* of these
pools. Yikes.

[Adam Tarr]

Those seeds look good.

[Elizabeth D Murray]

On 10/9/06 5:21 PM, in article
1160436063.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "friz2yo"
<fri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> (a) Brass Monkey beat Mischief in the NW Regional finals after Mischief
> had been beating BM regularly

It's interesting that the Sunday morning of regionals (after all the
Saturday results had been input) the RRI had BM beating Mischief in
head-to-head ratings.

[Becky]

Why not switch #9 Rival with #11 Flaming Moe...That way there's no
regional matchups (I.E. no briefcase and Moe again) and Moe beat Puppet
in their only HTH which could possibly be reason enough to place Moe
ahead of #10 Puppet. But I guess I don't know much about Rival and I'm
a little biased...Just trying to think of a way where Moe doesn't have
to play Case again.

becky
Moe #6

[cg]

ultimatep...@gmail.com wrote:

> last year, everyone was hyped up about a. hot and
> sweaty from the south, and b. meth from the midwest.
> when we looked at historical placement of teams from those
> regions, we found that we had reason to doubt
> them (three central teams seeded in the top 9!?,
> that was obviously ridiculous ), but we seeded
> regardless of those doubts (- real finish, 3, 10, 16,

i think you are overstating the hype about these teams a bit. the
reason meth was seeded so high was based on their higher placement and
head to head win over clx at regionals. clx had finished 2nd in 2004,
so people respected that and didn't want to seed them too low.
therefore carleton alums had to be seeded ahead of clx because they too
finished higher than clx at regionals. clx played the way people
expected and finished 3/4. so the hype wasn't about meth as much as it
was basing 2005 seedings on 2004's finish and the rule about regionals
finishes.

[ultimatep...@gmail.com]

This is closer, but the feeling that I'm getting is that pool A is
potentially more difficult than it should be, and pool C is not
difficult enough, not to mention the centrals rematch there.
if you switch mischief and slow white, maybe we are on to
something, as all things working out, mischief will play bad
larry in a semis, and arguably, mischief should be 2, and
that gets to be decided by a game. my seed by history
deal breaks down when a team, still in existence (CLX),
abdicates their spot, so I have doubts about the Central #6
seed. Why not push Amp or Rival up to #6, droop that central
seed down to 8/9. I would be ok with whore dropping down
to 8/9, but as noted, that puts them in the BM pool, which
makes no sense for a returning finalist to be in the same
pool as the other returning finalist, esp. same region. On
the third hand, there are too many number 1 seeds in pool
A, even with my changes.

also, i don't see bad larry at _2_ as justifiable. are they better
this year than last? really, that's a real question.

Although, purely from a selfish nw perspective, and the desire to
keep a strength bid, these pools make three nw teams in quarters
more likely. so yeah. They are perfect as is.

<1 Brass Monkey 8 Amp 9 Rival 16 Tandem
<
< 2 Bad Larry 7 Whor$hack 10 Puppet 15 Deliverance
<

< 3 Slow White 6 Mr. Briefcasen 11 Flaming Moe 14 Flycoons

<
< 4 Mischief 5 Gendors 12 Hooray 13 Salsa Police

pools as i would have them from info gleaned so far:

1. brass 8 mr. briefcase 9. whore 16. tandem
2. mischief 7. amp 10. puppet 15. salsa
3. bad larry 6. rival 11. flaming 14. flycoons
4. slow 5. gendors 12. hooray 13. deliverance

giving us power pools of
brass, bad larry, whore (or briefcase), rival
and
gendors, mischief, slow, amp

with briefcase given an opportunity to show
that they deserve a quarters spot by beating
the nw #3, and gendors given the possibility of
earning the #2 spot overall. you get your
two SW teams in quarters if all goes according
to seed, your two NW teams as well, and
opportunities for every other region to lose
their spot.

[drpu...@gmail.com]

A couple of thoughts:

- If you assume that Brass is the gold standard this year, then
Mischief is obviously running neck and neck with them. Not sure you
can bump them down to 4, and Slow White above them to 3.

- The Central does have strong teams, the strongest of which is going
to Worlds. No smack talk intended, just going by regionals results.

If you go back and look at the seedings that you're commenting on, i
think its a pretty good spread of the "scary" NW teams, and puts Slow
White up against the Gendors. Seems like a classic 4/5 slugfest as it
should be. I dunno, you havent convinced me that your changes make any
more sense than my originals. In fact, they make *less* sense in that
you've got a regional rematch (Briefcase vs. Moe) and my version has
none.

[friz2yo]

Sorry! I missed the regional re-match of Moe and Briefcase. That
should indeed be avoided.

In my mind, we can group the teams into 3 classes:

A. Top Tier
- Brass Monkey (#1)
- Mischief
- Bad Larry
- Gendors
- Slow White

B. Middle Tier
- Amp
- Mr. Briefcase
- Flaming Moe
- Puppet Regine
- Whore$hack
- Rival

C. Bottom Tier
- Hooray
- Deliverance
- Flycoons
- Salsa Police
- Tandem

Tiers are based on proven performance during the season and placement
at Regionals, not necessarily how I think teams might end up. As long
as these "tiers" are maintained in the seedings, placement within each
group can be adjusted to optimize match-ups in pool play and power
pools.

I do like the pools/seeding suggested below.

[Garrett Dyer]

On 9 Oct 2006 18:24:12 -0700, drpu...@gmail.com wrote:

>think its a pretty good spread of the "scary" NW teams

The NW teams weren't "scary" last year, and from what I understand
from more than one NW source, BM and Whoreshack are weaker this year.
AMP should be ahead of Whoreshack.

Unless Rival's roster has *significantly* improved since May, Flaming
Moe, Puppet Regime, and Hooray should all be seeded above them. Not
sure what they've done since, but certainly beating Deliverance - a
good team - doesn't put them ahead of those three teams, who've all
had wins against big opponents.

[McGhee]

> >think its a pretty good spread of the "scary" NW teams

Boo!

I'm just happy to be playing this year at nationals after severing the
tendon in my throwing wrist two weeks before nationals last year.
Place us where you will, we'll have a great time no matter where we
sit.

McGhee
Whor$hack #31

[drpu...@gmail.com]

Meant no disrespect at all. Whor$hack kicked our asses last year... i
should have left the quotes off. :)

[bettyf...@gmail.com]

lex has 3 sisters...so he's really sensitive to all this, guys. be
nice.
:)
kk

[Garrett Dyer]

On 9 Oct 2006 20:18:35 -0700, "McGhee" <josep...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>I'm just happy to be playing this year at nationals after severing the
>tendon in my throwing wrist two weeks before nationals last year.

Certainly Whoreshack would've been a much more scary team if you
would've been able to make that trip. Good luck this year...

[qd...@hotmail.com]

Oh, he made the trip and got a handblock against us with the club
wrist. Not cool.

[D. Smith]

Garrett Dyer wrote:
> Unless Rival's roster has *significantly* improved since May, Flaming
> Moe, Puppet Regime, and Hooray should all be seeded above them. Not
> sure what they've done since, but certainly beating Deliverance - a
> good team - doesn't put them ahead of those three teams, who've all
> had wins against big opponents.

Considering they didn't have tryouts until June, I'm going to go out on
a limb and say the roster has improved. They've added some top notch
women and a few ex-Chain guys. Certainly it's hard to seed teams based
on perceived strength rather than actual results, but Rival has lots of
experience at Nationals in the Open and Women's division.

[wix]

qd...@hotmail.com wrote:

>
> And no one has mentioned that 'Lex Bellows appears to be on Puppet
> Regime. That must be taken into consideration in any seeding
> discussion.
>

I knew a man who made the mistake of looking past the Grumpy Sailor...

[Garrett Dyer]

On 10 Oct 2006 09:08:20 -0700, "D. Smith" <klo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>but Rival has lots of
>experience at Nationals in the Open and Women's division.

...and we all know how far that got Black Molly.

[tebewebb]

Garrett Dyer wrote:
> >but Rival has lots of experience at Nationals in the Open and Women's division.
>
> ...and we all know how far that got Black Molly.

Actually, "we" don't. How many were on Black Molly? KD, Timmy B, and
who else? I know they didn't take TJ, which is ridiculous IMHO.

Stephen
DC Funk
Formerly FoF, permanently Happy