The following was proposed by Michael Schulz of LSU on the bama section blog (http://bamasecs.wordpress.com/) and looks to be pretty good
1. Texas (H-H Win over Kansas) 2. Kansas (Best Regular Season/RRI) 3. UNT (2nd in TX Section) 4. Texas State (3rd in TX + H-H over Arkansas) 5. Arkansas (2nd in OZ + H-H over A&M) 6. Texas A&M (4th in TX + H-H over LSU) 7. LSU (1st in BAMA + H-H W&L to Arkansas) 8. Wash U (3rd in OZ) 9. Truman (4th in OZ) 10. Missourri (5th in OZ) 11. Ole Miss - These guys could be 9th but Truman’s RRI is way better but got 4th in the section so Truman has to be behind Wash U. Missourri and Ole Miss could go either way but to avoid rematches. 12. Rice - (5th TX) 13. Harding - (6th OZ) - Rice and Harding could switch. 14. Miss St. - (3rd BAMA) Harding has a better record against common opponents and better RRI. 15. Houston - (6th TX) 16. UTA - (7th TX)
This gives us:
Texas UTA
Wash U Truman
Arkansas Rice
Tx St Harding
UNT Miss St
Tx AM Ole Miss
LSU Missouri
Kansas Houston
This leaves only 2 inter-sectional matchups Tx-UTa and Wash U-Truman in the first round which is pretty good considering 13 teams come from 2 sections.
> The following was proposed by Michael Schulz of LSU on the bama > section blog (http://bamasecs.wordpress.com/) and looks to be pretty > good
> 1. Texas (H-H Win over Kansas) > 2. Kansas (Best Regular Season/RRI) > 3. UNT (2nd in TX Section) > 4. Texas State (3rd in TX + H-H over Arkansas) > 5. Arkansas (2nd in OZ + H-H over A&M) > 6. Texas A&M (4th in TX + H-H over LSU) > 7. LSU (1st in BAMA + H-H W&L to Arkansas) > 8. Wash U (3rd in OZ) > 9. Truman (4th in OZ) > 10. Missourri (5th in OZ) > 11. Ole Miss - These guys could be 9th but Truman’s RRI is way better > but got 4th in the section so Truman has to be behind Wash U. > Missourri and Ole Miss could go either way but to avoid rematches. > 12. Rice - (5th TX) > 13. Harding - (6th OZ) - Rice and Harding could switch. > 14. Miss St. - (3rd BAMA) Harding has a better record against common > opponents and better RRI. > 15. Houston - (6th TX) > 16. UTA - (7th TX)
> This gives us:
> Texas > UTA
> Wash U > Truman
> Arkansas > Rice
> Tx St > Harding
> UNT > Miss St
> Tx AM > Ole Miss
> LSU > Missouri
> Kansas > Houston
> This leaves only 2 inter-sectional matchups Tx-UTa and Wash U-Truman > in the first round which is pretty good considering 13 teams come from > 2 sections.
You started it.
Before you get seeds from me, you get a statement about what seedings are good for:
You can either view seedings as predictive of the results of the upcoming tournament or reflective of the results of the previous played games. Given the UPA requirement that sectional (regional) finish must be maintained, seeding at regionals (nationals) must be reflective rather than predictive.
Before you get seeds, you get to read how I got the seedings -- for me, the process is more important than the outcome (gee, have I said that before?). The following explanation captures the key steps and tries to explain the rationale for subtle parts of the process.
(1) consider the highest remaining team from each section (2) compare these teams to eachother in a mini tournament (similar to what is done on the UPA SRT tool in the team grid) the points for consideration are, in order: (a) head to head record (b) record against common opponents at regionals that have not already been seeded (c) record against common opponents not at regionals (d) RRI, last years results, flip a coin -- at this point there really isnt much useful information. Get teams to play more games! (3) after playing out this mini tournament, see if any team has a unique best record. If that team exists, they get the next seed. If that team does not exist, then there are two possiblities (a) if every matchup was decided with the same criteria (i.e. head to head) then consider the next criteria (common opponents) to make the decision (b) if matchups were decided using different criteria, then nullify all of the lowest criteria used to make decisions (i.e. 1 matchup with head to head, 2 with rri, then the rri matchups become draws) (4) repeat this process until all teams are seeded.
There are a couple of important clarifications when applying this algorithm (1) When comparing common opponents, compare the winning percentage against each individual team (i.e. aTm goes 2-1 against Davidson while LSU goes 1-0 against Davidson, then LSU would 'win' that matchup based on that common opponent)
(2) Placing higher than another team at sectionals negates all previous victories/losses (i.e. if texas went 0-3 against aTm this year, then because texas placed higher than atm at sectionals, that record would be interpreted as 1-0).
(3) do not consider common opponents that have already been seeded. Basically, using Arkansas's victory over Texas as an argument to seed Arkansas ahead of aTm is also an argument to seed arkansas above Texas. If texas has already been seeded, then we the argument is no longer compelling (and we have already decided that Arkansas is below texas, so the whole transitivity relationship begins to fall apart).
(4) Consider common opponents at regionals separately from common opponents not at regionals for 2 reasons. First, it gives us another layer of 'tie breaks'. Second, a common opponent at the tournament will be directly impacted by the seedings so results with that opponent should weigh more heavily than results against opponents not at the tournament.
And now you get the seedings, with the short explanation for why each seed was selected.
(1) Texas o Texas over Kansas head to head o Texas over LSU based on common opponents 2-1 (GA Tech, atm in favor of texas, Arkansas in favor of LSU) - note this is tied 1-1 for teams at regionals, and 1-0 for teams not at regionals (2) Kansas o Kansas over UNT based on common opponents UCSD, arkansas - again, arkansas at regionals is enough to stop consideration. UCSD is just gravy o Kansas over LSU based on common opponents OK State, arkansas, notredame, michigan state - see the comment above (3) Arkansas o arkansas over UNT based on head to head o arkansas over LSU based on common opponents Missouri state and atm - atm is at regionals, so missouri state is just extra (4) UNT o LSU over UNT based on common opponent Davidson - not at regionals o Washington over LSU based on common opponents 3-1 (Notre Dame, Michigan St, Missouri state in favor of wash, davidson in favor of LSU). - no teams at regionals in the common opponent list o UNT over washington based on common opponent Tx State. - tx state at regionals, carries more weight than other options
This is the first tricky one. LSU and UNT have a common opponent arkansas, but Arkansas has already been seeded so should be ignored. LSU over UNT is based on team not at regionals, Washington over LSU is based on teams not at regionals. UNT over washington is based on a team at regionals. So the UNT edge remains at the 'top' and we break one of the latter two. End result, UNT as the 4 seed.
(5) tx state o Washington over LSU based on common opponents (3-1 as above) o Tx State over washington based on head to head o tx state over lsu based on common opponents atm at regionals, common opponents Ohio St, OK St not at regionals
(6) washington o washington over lsu as above o washington over atm on common opponents 2-1 (OK, Missouri in favor of washington, davidson for atm) - again, Missouri at regionals is enough at 1-0. the other two are a wash o atm over lsu head to head
(7) truman state o truman over lsu based on common opponents emory, missour state, ok state - none at regionals o truman over atm based on common opponent OK state, missouri - missouri at regionals stops discussion o atm over lsu head to head
(8) atm o atm over lsu head to head o missouri over atm head to head o lsu over missouri head to head ==== o atm over lsu on rri (common opponents are identical records) o atm over missouri on common opponent grinnel - not at regionals o missouri over lsu on common opponents ok state, missouri state - not at regionals
This one is also tricky given the chain of head to heads. at the end of the day, atm has claims over the other two teams on weaker conditions so they get the seed.
(9) lsu o lsu over missouri head to head o lsu over rice common opponents 2-1 (new mexico, davidson for lsu, ok state for rice) - none at regionals o missouri over rice on RRI
(10) missouri o missouri over rice on rri o missouri over mississippi on rri o mississippi over rice on rri
(11) mississippi o mississippi over rice on rri o rice over harding on rri o mississipppi over harding head to head
(12) rice o rice over harding on rri o harding over missippi state on rri o rice over miss. state on rri
(13) ms state o ms state over harding on rri o harding over houston on rri
(14) harding o harding over houston on rri
(15) houston
(16) UT-Arlington
For the TL;DR folks:
1) Texas 2) Kansas 3) Arkansas 4) UNT 5) tx state 6) washington 7) truman 8) atm 9) lsu 10) missouri 11) mississippi 12) rice 13) ms state 14) harding 15) houston 16) ut-arlington
These seeds give an unfortunate number of sectionals rematches and put the texas and ozarks sections on opposite sides of the bracket (assuming a 16 team bracket). In order to resolve those issues, I advocate swapping the 3/4 seeds, the 7/8 seeds, and the 12/13 seeds. This leaves only one inter-sectional matchup between two teams from the section that has 7 teams at regionals (texas - UT Arlington).
ps. Mike, is this a good start on reaching 100 by Tuesday?
I'm glad that you were able to legitimize placing the 1st seed from the Bama section in the bottom half of the tournament. At least that should be uncontested from here on out.
On Apr 13, 11:03 pm, Alex DW <kadrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm glad that you were able to legitimize placing the 1st seed from > the Bama section in the bottom half of the tournament. At least that > should be uncontested from here on out.
> -DW
Totally agreed. Next year I say we petition to remove the 'Bama section from Regionals. They are just hogging up 3 whole spots. Now what about that 17th seed.
> On Apr 13, 8:56 pm, Muff <john.as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lets look at seeding:
> > The following was proposed by Michael Schulz of LSU on the bama > > section blog (http://bamasecs.wordpress.com/) and looks to be pretty > > good
> > 1. Texas (H-H Win over Kansas) > > 2. Kansas (Best Regular Season/RRI) > > 3. UNT (2nd in TX Section) > > 4. Texas State (3rd in TX + H-H over Arkansas) > > 5. Arkansas (2nd in OZ + H-H over A&M) > > 6. Texas A&M (4th in TX + H-H over LSU) > > 7. LSU (1st in BAMA + H-H W&L to Arkansas) > > 8. Wash U (3rd in OZ) > > 9. Truman (4th in OZ) > > 10. Missourri (5th in OZ) > > 11. Ole Miss - These guys could be 9th but Truman’s RRI is way better > > but got 4th in the section so Truman has to be behind Wash U. > > Missourri and Ole Miss could go either way but to avoid rematches. > > 12. Rice - (5th TX) > > 13. Harding - (6th OZ) - Rice and Harding could switch. > > 14. Miss St. - (3rd BAMA) Harding has a better record against common > > opponents and better RRI. > > 15. Houston - (6th TX) > > 16. UTA - (7th TX)
> > This gives us:
> > Texas > > UTA
> > Wash U > > Truman
> > Arkansas > > Rice
> > Tx St > > Harding
> > UNT > > Miss St
> > Tx AM > > Ole Miss
> > LSU > > Missouri
> > Kansas > > Houston
> > This leaves only 2 inter-sectional matchups Tx-UTa and Wash U-Truman > > in the first round which is pretty good considering 13 teams come from > > 2 sections.
> You started it.
> Before you get seeds from me, you get a statement about what seedings > are good for:
> You can either view seedings as predictive of the results of the > upcoming tournament or reflective of the results of the previous > played games. Given the UPA requirement that sectional (regional) > finish must be maintained, seeding at regionals (nationals) must be > reflective rather than predictive.
> Before you get seeds, you get to read how I got the seedings -- for > me, the process is more important than the outcome (gee, have I said > that before?). The following explanation captures the key steps and > tries to explain the rationale for subtle parts of the process.
> (1) consider the highest remaining team from each section > (2) compare these teams to eachother in a mini tournament (similar to > what is done on the UPA SRT tool in the team grid) > the points for consideration are, in order: > (a) head to head record > (b) record against common opponents at regionals that have not > already been seeded > (c) record against common opponents not at regionals > (d) RRI, last years results, flip a coin -- at this point > there really isnt much useful information. Get teams to play more > games! > (3) after playing out this mini tournament, see if any team has a > unique best record. If that team exists, they get the next seed. If > that team does not exist, then there are two possiblities > (a) if every matchup was decided with the same criteria (i.e. > head to head) then consider the next criteria (common opponents) to > make the decision > (b) if matchups were decided using different criteria, then > nullify all of the lowest criteria used to make decisions (i.e. 1 > matchup with head to head, 2 with rri, then the rri matchups become > draws) > (4) repeat this process until all teams are seeded.
> There are a couple of important clarifications when applying this > algorithm > (1) When comparing common opponents, compare the winning percentage > against each individual team (i.e. aTm goes 2-1 against Davidson while > LSU goes 1-0 against Davidson, then LSU would 'win' that matchup based > on that common opponent)
> (2) Placing higher than another team at sectionals negates all > previous victories/losses (i.e. if texas went 0-3 against aTm this > year, then because texas placed higher than atm at sectionals, that > record would be interpreted as 1-0).
> (3) do not consider common opponents that have already been seeded. > Basically, using Arkansas's victory over Texas as an argument to seed > Arkansas ahead of aTm is also an argument to seed arkansas above > Texas. If texas has already been seeded, then we the argument is no > longer compelling (and we have already decided that Arkansas is below > texas, so the whole transitivity relationship begins to fall apart).
> (4) Consider common opponents at regionals separately from common > opponents not at regionals for 2 reasons. First, it gives us another > layer of 'tie breaks'. Second, a common opponent at the tournament > will be directly impacted by the seedings so results with that > opponent should weigh more heavily than results against opponents not > at the tournament.
> And now you get the seedings, with the short explanation for why each > seed was selected.
> (1) Texas > o Texas over Kansas head to head > o Texas over LSU based on common opponents 2-1 (GA Tech, atm in > favor of texas, Arkansas in favor of LSU) > - note this is tied 1-1 for teams at regionals, and 1-0 for > teams not at regionals > (2) Kansas > o Kansas over UNT based on common opponents UCSD, arkansas > - again, arkansas at regionals is enough to stop consideration. > UCSD is just gravy > o Kansas over LSU based on common opponents OK State, arkansas, > notredame, michigan state > - see the comment above > (3) Arkansas > o arkansas over UNT based on head to head > o arkansas over LSU based on common opponents Missouri state and > atm > - atm is at regionals, so missouri state is just extra > (4) UNT > o LSU over UNT based on common opponent Davidson > - not at regionals > o Washington over LSU based on common opponents 3-1 (Notre > Dame, Michigan St, Missouri state in favor of wash, davidson in favor > of LSU). > - no teams at regionals in the common opponent list > o UNT over washington based on common opponent Tx State. > - tx state at regionals, carries more weight than other options
> This is the first tricky one. LSU and UNT have a common opponent > arkansas, but Arkansas has already been seeded so should be ignored. > LSU over UNT is based on team not at regionals, Washington over LSU is > based on teams not at regionals. UNT over washington is based on a > team at regionals. So the UNT edge remains at the 'top' and we break > one of the latter two. End result, UNT as the 4 seed.
> (5) tx state > o Washington over LSU based on common opponents (3-1 as above) > o Tx State over washington based on head to head > o tx state over lsu based on common opponents atm at regionals, > common opponents Ohio St, OK St not at regionals
> (6) washington > o washington over lsu as above > o washington over atm on common opponents 2-1 (OK, Missouri in > favor of washington, davidson for atm) > - again, Missouri at regionals is enough at 1-0. the other two > are a wash > o atm over lsu head to head
> (7) truman state > o truman over lsu based on common opponents emory, missour state, > ok state > - none at regionals > o truman over atm based on common opponent OK state, missouri > - missouri at regionals stops discussion > o atm over lsu head to head
> (8) atm > o atm over lsu head to head > o missouri over atm head to head > o lsu over missouri head to head > ==== > o atm over lsu on rri (common opponents are identical records) > o atm over missouri on common opponent grinnel > - not at regionals > o missouri over lsu on common opponents ok state, missouri state > - not at regionals
> This one is also tricky given the chain of head to heads. at the end > of the day, atm has claims over the other two teams on weaker > conditions so they get the seed.
> (9) lsu > o lsu over missouri head to head > o lsu over rice common opponents 2-1 (new mexico, davidson for lsu, > ok state for rice) > - none at regionals > o missouri over rice on RRI
> (10) missouri > o missouri over rice on rri > o missouri over mississippi on rri > o mississippi over rice on rri
> (11) mississippi > o mississippi over rice on rri > o rice over harding on rri > o mississipppi over harding head to head
> (12) rice > o rice over harding on rri > o harding over missippi state on rri > o rice over miss. state on rri
> (13) ms state > o ms state over harding on rri > o harding over houston on rri
> (14) harding > o harding over houston on rri
> (15) houston
> (16) UT-Arlington
> For the TL;DR folks:
> 1) Texas > 2) Kansas > 3) Arkansas > 4) UNT > 5) tx state > 6) washington > 7) truman > 8) atm > 9) lsu > 10) missouri > 11) mississippi > 12) rice > 13) ms state > 14) harding > 15) houston > 16) ut-arlington
> These seeds give an unfortunate number of sectionals rematches and put > the texas and ozarks sections on opposite sides of the bracket > (assuming a 16 team bracket). In order to resolve those issues, I > advocate swapping the 3/4 seeds, the 7/8 seeds, and the 12/13 seeds. > This leaves only one inter-sectional matchup between two teams from > the section that has 7 teams at regionals (texas - UT Arlington).
> ps. Mike, is this a good start on reaching 100 by Tuesday?
So you make this long post with a thorough (though still arbitrary and based on which factors you deem to be more important than others) analysis of seedings, and then you conclude it by saying basically - this doesn't work so switch these 6 teams around. If you just move teams around to fit into the part of the framework not accounted for in your system, then what is the point of the system? Despite the hard
...
> Before you get seeds, you get to read how I got the seedings -- for > me, the process is more important than the outcome (gee, have I said > that before?). The following explanation captures the key steps and > tries to explain the rationale for subtle parts of the process.
> (1) consider the highest remaining team from each section
Allen, this is your most important tool to make your algorithm manageable. But this is the place where your system is flawed. If an upset happens at sectionals you punish the upsettee severely (give them a seed very far below the seed they would have gotten without the upset) and reward the upsetter only barely (give them a seed just slightly above the seed they would have gotten without the upset).
Punishing the upsettee harshly may seem ok, but this also punishes the first round opponent of that team by having to play a much better team than earned. Yes, our regional formats are fairly robust against unbalanced (in the sense of predictive seeding), but if you argue that way you may as well seed alphabetically or randomly.
The problem at hand is that the UPA seeding tries to do two things: 1. Seed teams according to their accomplishments all year 2. Keep the order decided at sectionals to mimick a big tournament consisting of sectionals/regionals/nationals
These two things don't work together if severe upsets happen. You could get 1 if you dropped the requirement of seeding by placement of previous stages and used the results from previous stages merely as most recent (and thus important) full strength comparison between two teams.
Or you could completely go with the second philosophy, where teams in the region are completely seeded before sectionals, and if upsets happen the two teams merely switch seeds in the next stage.
The UPA currently wants a mixture of both... and I like Tarr's philosophy on this: Seed all teams according to philosophy 1 ("true seeds"). Then, if this violates the sectionals-regionals rule due to an upset at sectionals, seed both these teams as close as possible to the average of their combined strength (look at their combined record, normalized for number of games played per team and treat them as one team) in the order inherited from sectionals.
On Apr 14, 9:45 am, Flo <Flo.Pfen...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Before you get seeds, you get to read how I got the seedings -- for > > me, the process is more important than the outcome (gee, have I said > > that before?). The following explanation captures the key steps and > > tries to explain the rationale for subtle parts of the process.
> > (1) consider the highest remaining team from each section
> Allen, > this is your most important tool to make your algorithm manageable. > But this is the place where your system is flawed. If an upset happens > at sectionals you punish the upsettee severely (give them a seed very > far below the seed they would have gotten without the upset) and > reward the upsetter only barely (give them a seed just slightly above > the seed they would have gotten without the upset).
My take on the seeding instructions from the UPA is that they are underspecified and trying to do two contradictory things at once, which you have identified. Given the strict "Obey sectional finish" requirement, it seems to me that the UPA is at least, implicitly, stating that seeding teams according to the accomplishments of the year is the correct thing to do and that "predictive seeding" is not the right answer. Consequently, I do think that a mechanical mechanism for seeding that can be applied by any diligent person is appropriate. Which mechanism should we use? I find that to be an interesting, and open, question.
I think it is important and reasonable to consider the next team from each section in isolation rather than in the context of the lower finishing teams because of the very real possiblity (Delaware* from the Colonial section this year) of a good team being "upset" and not qualifying for regionals. Does the fact that Delaware was expected to be the 3 seed at ME regionals justify pushing the teams that upset Delaware up into the high seeds of regionals even though Delaware is not at that tournament? To me, the answer is no. I don't think the seed for the top seed from the colonial section should not change dramatically based on how many teams from the section qualify for regionals.
> Punishing the upsettee harshly may seem ok, but this also punishes the > first round opponent of that team by having to play a much better team > than earned. Yes, our regional formats are fairly robust against > unbalanced (in the sense of predictive seeding), but if you argue that > way you may as well seed alphabetically or randomly.
Honestly, I would not object to alphabetic or random seeding, especially for the pool play to bracket formats.
> The problem at hand is that the UPA seeding tries to do two things: > 1. Seed teams according to their accomplishments all year > 2. Keep the order decided at sectionals to mimick a big tournament > consisting of sectionals/regionals/nationals
> These two things don't work together if severe upsets happen. You > could get 1 if you dropped the requirement of seeding by placement of > previous stages and used the results from previous stages merely as > most recent (and thus important) full strength comparison between two > teams.
I disagree with the assessment that the most recent game is the most important comparison between two teams. How do you compare a game at stanford with perfect weather to a game at fool's fest with 35 mph sustained winds in which every game is decided by the flip? (hypothetical). Fool's fest is more recent, but the reseults are clearly skewed by weather. If you discard the 35mph winds, what about 30? 20? at what point are the wins 'acceptable' to consider?
> Or you could completely go with the second philosophy, where teams in > the region are completely seeded before sectionals, and if upsets > happen the two teams merely switch seeds in the next stage.
> The UPA currently wants a mixture of both... and I like Tarr's > philosophy on this: Seed all teams according to philosophy 1 ("true > seeds"). Then, if this violates the sectionals-regionals rule due to > an upset at sectionals, seed both these teams as close as possible to > the average of their combined strength (look at their combined record, > normalized for number of games played per team and treat them as one > team) in the order inherited from sectionals.
How do you seed teams according to philosophy 1 ("true seeds" reflective of their results from this year)? My candidate mechanism for doing that seeding would be to go back to my initial description and replace "next team from each section" with "all candidate teams for the next seed". When seeding regionals, I currently define the candidate team from each section to be the highest available finisher from that section; other definitions are viable. Do you have another candidate that is better?
allen
* I am basing all discussion of Delaware on the fact that they were mentioned in the C1 team list at the end of the year. If their actual play did not match that preseason evaluation, then please treat them as a strawman example.
> So you make this long post with a thorough (though still arbitrary and > based on which factors you deem to be more important than others) > analysis of seedings, and then you conclude it by saying basically - > this doesn't work so switch these 6 teams around. If you just move > teams around to fit into the part of the framework not accounted for > in your system, then what is the point of the system? Despite the > hard ...
(1) I'm more interested in the seeding mechanism than the results of the seeding. I freely acknowledge that the factors I choose to consider are somewhat arbitrary. After all, there are many factors (total games played, points scored, point differential, number of blue eyed eskimos) that I am not considering. What factors do you think I should have used? which factors should I have not used? Should the factors be weighted differently? These are all interesting questions and I would love to hear your answers.
(2) If it were completely up to me, I would not modify the seedings
(3) It is a legitimate concern that the bracket could end up as a replay of sectionals. this is undesirable from a competition and fairness perspective
(4) Given the possibility to address (3) with minor changes to the initial seeds, I think the change is worth considering and is less offensive than other alternatives that I have seen.
In talking about THIS year's regionals with regards to Allen's formula (which I've come to love), do we have any Sectional upsets that we're worried about? Doesn't look like it to me. Top 4 in the Ozarks went to seed from Sectionals. UNT leaped Tx St at Sectionals but had a pretty comparable season with slightly better common opp, so no problem there. LSU jumped Mississippi at Sectionals, but we all know the Bama section is moot. So where's the upsets that make Allen's formula an abomination? I see none.
On Apr 14, 11:28 am, MH <mikehousto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In talking about THIS year's regionals with regards to Allen's formula > (which I've come to love), do we have any Sectional upsets that we're > worried about? Doesn't look like it to me. Top 4 in the Ozarks went > to seed from Sectionals. UNT leaped Tx St at Sectionals but had a > pretty comparable season with slightly better common opp, so no > problem there. LSU jumped Mississippi at Sectionals, but we all know > the Bama section is moot. So where's the upsets that make Allen's > formula an abomination? I see none.
> -MH
the bama section is moot? thats an angry statement. sure none of the bama section teams are C1 worthy, but i'd pick vandy or auburn to be in regionals over UT-Arlington or Houston. dont underestimate the bama section just because its small and doesn't get much national attention. and to seed the winner of the section as 9th out of 16? thats pretty bold! lsu doesn't deserve first or second, or even up to the 4th. the fifth seed is a long stretch, but surely they're above the 9th seed, in the top half at least. i implore the people to reconsider the rankings.
> On Apr 14, 11:28 am, MH <mikehousto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In talking about THIS year's regionals with regards to Allen's formula > > (which I've come to love), do we have any Sectional upsets that we're > > worried about? Doesn't look like it to me. Top 4 in the Ozarks went > > to seed from Sectionals. UNT leaped Tx St at Sectionals but had a > > pretty comparable season with slightly better common opp, so no > > problem there. LSU jumped Mississippi at Sectionals, but we all know > > the Bama section is moot. So where's the upsets that make Allen's > > formula an abomination? I see none.
> > -MH
> the bama section is moot? thats an angry statement. sure none of the > bama section teams are C1 worthy, but i'd pick vandy or auburn to be > in regionals over UT-Arlington or Houston. dont underestimate the bama > section just because its small and doesn't get much national > attention. and to seed the winner of the section as 9th out of 16? > thats pretty bold! lsu doesn't deserve first or second, or even up to > the 4th. the fifth seed is a long stretch, but surely they're above > the 9th seed, in the top half at least. i implore the people to > reconsider the rankings.
Think about the most popular tournament in the country (the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament). You can earn a bid into this tournament by winning your conference tournament, no matter how your season went (Syracuse did this a couple years back in 2006). Sectionals gives teams a chance to qualify for Regionals, thats it. Big upsets should be taken into account, but the whole season resume takes precedence. In general, Regionals should be a separate tournament with the sole purpose of giving teams a chance to qualify for Nationals. The whole season resume should be taken into account (including Sectionals games). Just because a 'Bama team won their section, doesn't mean they are a top team necessarily, it just means they are a top team in their section only. Look at their season schedules/results as a whole and compare that against other teams in their region. Futhermore, since this is a separate tournament than Sectionals, seedings should not be "re-arranged" because these teams are from the same section or whatever. Allen's seedings (before suggested rearranging) seem fair.
> On Apr 14, 11:28 am, MH <mikehousto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In talking about THIS year's regionals with regards to Allen's formula > > (which I've come to love), do we have any Sectional upsets that we're > > worried about? Doesn't look like it to me. Top 4 in the Ozarks went > > to seed from Sectionals. UNT leaped Tx St at Sectionals but had a > > pretty comparable season with slightly better common opp, so no > > problem there. LSU jumped Mississippi at Sectionals, but we all know > > the Bama section is moot. So where's the upsets that make Allen's > > formula an abomination? I see none.
> > -MH
> the bama section is moot? thats an angry statement. sure none of the > bama section teams are C1 worthy, but i'd pick vandy or auburn to be > in regionals over UT-Arlington or Houston. dont underestimate the bama > section just because its small and doesn't get much national > attention. and to seed the winner of the section as 9th out of 16? > thats pretty bold! lsu doesn't deserve first or second, or even up to > the 4th. the fifth seed is a long stretch, but surely they're above > the 9th seed, in the top half at least. i implore the people to > reconsider the rankings.
Be careful what you say about Houston. I hear that a certain skinny fellow with sticky fingers playing with them this year.
> On Apr 14, 11:15 am, pingy <littletigr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 11:28 am, MH <mikehousto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In talking about THIS year's regionals with regards to Allen's formula > > > (which I've come to love), do we have any Sectional upsets that we're > > > worried about? Doesn't look like it to me. Top 4 in the Ozarks went > > > to seed from Sectionals. UNT leaped Tx St at Sectionals but had a > > > pretty comparable season with slightly better common opp, so no > > > problem there. LSU jumped Mississippi at Sectionals, but we all know > > > the Bama section is moot. So where's the upsets that make Allen's > > > formula an abomination? I see none.
> > > -MH
> > the bama section is moot? thats an angry statement. sure none of the > > bama section teams are C1 worthy, but i'd pick vandy or auburn to be > > in regionals over UT-Arlington or Houston. dont underestimate the bama > > section just because its small and doesn't get much national > > attention. and to seed the winner of the section as 9th out of 16? > > thats pretty bold! lsu doesn't deserve first or second, or even up to > > the 4th. the fifth seed is a long stretch, but surely they're above > > the 9th seed, in the top half at least. i implore the people to > > reconsider the rankings.
> Be careful what you say about Houston. I hear that a certain skinny > fellow with sticky fingers playing with them this year.
> -DW
well i haven't seen houston play, so i'm not sure about their level of play, i was just going by upa.
> On Apr 14, 11:15 am, pingy <littletigr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 11:28 am, MH <mikehousto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In talking about THIS year's regionals with regards to Allen's formula > > > (which I've come to love), do we have any Sectional upsets that we're > > > worried about? Doesn't look like it to me. Top 4 in the Ozarks went > > > to seed from Sectionals. UNT leaped Tx St at Sectionals but had a > > > pretty comparable season with slightly better common opp, so no > > > problem there. LSU jumped Mississippi at Sectionals, but we all know > > > the Bama section is moot. So where's the upsets that make Allen's > > > formula an abomination? I see none.
> > > -MH
> > the bama section is moot? thats an angry statement. sure none of the > > bama section teams are C1 worthy, but i'd pick vandy or auburn to be > > in regionals over UT-Arlington or Houston. dont underestimate the bama > > section just because its small and doesn't get much national > > attention. and to seed the winner of the section as 9th out of 16? > > thats pretty bold! lsu doesn't deserve first or second, or even up to > > the 4th. the fifth seed is a long stretch, but surely they're above > > the 9th seed, in the top half at least. i implore the people to > > reconsider the rankings.
> Be careful what you say about Houston. I hear that a certain skinny > fellow with sticky fingers playing with them this year.
> -DW- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I watched UH v ATM and that dude was throwing pretty well in the wind. However his sticky fingers must have changes since leaving Wash U because he must have had 7 or 8 drops on dump passes. Pretty tough to watch. Houston was surprisingly not bad.
> I watched UH v ATM and that dude was throwing pretty well in the > wind. However his sticky fingers must have changes since leaving Wash > U because he must have had 7 or 8 drops on dump passes. Pretty tough > to watch. Houston was surprisingly not bad.
oops, maybe i shouldn't rag on them then. either way they're in regionals so they must be a decent team at the least.
On Apr 14, 12:28 pm, MH <mikehousto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In talking about THIS year's regionals with regards to Allen's formula > (which I've come to love), do we have any Sectional upsets that we're > worried about? Doesn't look like it to me. Top 4 in the Ozarks went > to seed from Sectionals. UNT leaped Tx St at Sectionals but had a > pretty comparable season with slightly better common opp, so no > problem there. LSU jumped Mississippi at Sectionals, but we all know > the Bama section is moot. So where's the upsets that make Allen's > formula an abomination? I see none.
|
