Nationals Seedings (open)
Byron Hicks
Florida at number one. It is going to be crazy after that. There are so many
wins and losses against each other in this years field that seeding is going
to be a bitch.
My top five for now would be Florida, Wisconsin, Colorado, Michigan, and
Texas.
BMaster
15. NE1
16. NE2
bread
Here's a first stab just to get the ball rolling:
1) Florida
I think this is pretty clear.
Also fairly clear, I think:
10) UCSC
11) Georgia
12) Stanford
13) Del
14) Pitt
15) NE1
16) NE2
UCSC's got a solid win over GA and a bunch of H2H losses, and Stanford
has only a close win over Texas and a bunch of H2H losses. Pitt has
nice wins over Wisconsin and Texas, but their loss to Delaware pins
them at the bottom of the bracket. I want to seed Georgia higher but
they got smacked by UCSC and Florida and beat by Arizona; a win over
Colorado and a universe-point win over Carleton isn't enough to bump
them up.
Then I think
2) Michigan
3) Wisconsin
Aside from a loss to Colorado, Michigan has put up a strong showing.
They haven't had as tough a schedule as many of the other qualifiers
but they have a very convincing win over Wisconsin and won their
region soundly.
4) Illinois
Illinois has a universe point loss to Carleton but wins over Texas,
Colorado, UCSC and Stanford, and three (very) close losses to
Florida. I think this merits them being seeded this high; the fact
that Michigan beat them handily at Regionals is another reason for
Michigan to be the 2.
Now, the hardest part:
5) Colorado
6) Texas
7) Arizona
8) Carleton
9) UNT
These teams all have funky H2H wins/losses (Colorado 1-1 v. Carleton,
0-1 v. Texas, 2-0 v. AZ; Texas 2-0 v. AZ, 1-0 v. Carleton; Carleton
0-1 v. AZ), but Colorado has performed strongest against the field.
Texas/Arizona/Carleton look pretty even but I think a combination of
their head-to-head results and general performance throughout the
season puts them at 6-7-8.
North Texas has so few results versus other Nationals teams, but they
beat Texas at sectionals and nearly beat them at regionals. I think
they're scary as hell as a 9 seed.
Combined seedings:
1) Florida
2) Michigan
3) Wisconsin
4) Illinois
5) Colorado
6) Texas
7) Arizona
8) Carleton
9) UNT
10) UCSC
11) Georgia
12) Stanford
13) Del
14) Pitt
15) NE1
16) NE2
And with the snake:
Pool A
Florida (1)
Carleton (8)
Stanford (12)
Delaware (13)
Pool B
Michigan (2)
Arizona (7)
Georgia (11)
Pittsburgh (14)
Pool C
Wisconsin (3)
Texas (6)
UC-Santa Cruz (10)
NE1 (15)
Pool D
Illinois (4)
Colorado (5)
North Texas (9)
NE2 (16)
Discuss.
degnan...@gmail.com
Florida, Wisc, Colorado will be the top 3, then Michigan. UCSC
dramatically improved over the year so they are probably a top 8 seed,
along with Stanford.
Theodore Hex
Hahahahahahah!!!! Ohhhhh .... this would be funnier if you weren't
serious.
Knappy
Either you're from the midwest, or banging someone from there.
Potentially both?
> serious.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Krishna
2) Wisconsin
3) Michigan
4) Colorado
5) Texas
6) Arizona
7) UCSC
8) North Texas
9) Illinois
10) Stanford
11) Carleton
12) Georgia
13) Del
14) Pitt
15) NE1
16) NE2
Giving:
Pool A
Florida (1)
North Texas (8)
Georgia (12)
Delaware (13)
Pool B
Wisconsin (2)
UCSC (7)
Carleton (11)
Pitt (14)
Pool C
Michigan (3)
Arizona (6)
Stanford (10)
NE1 (15)
Pool D
Colorado (4)
Texas (5)
Illinois (9)
NE2 (16)
Krishna
2) Wisconsin
3) Michigan
4) Colorado
5) Texas
6) Arizona
7) UCSC
8) North Texas
9) Illinois
10) Stanford
11) Carleton
12) Georgia
14) Pitt
15) NE1
16) NE2
Giving:
Pool A
Florida (1)
North Texas (8)
Georgia (12)
Delaware (13)
Pool B
Wisconsin (2)
UCSC (7)
Carleton (11)
Pitt (14)
Pool C
Michigan (3)
Arizona (6)
Stanford (10)
NE1 (15)
Pool D
bro...@gmail.com
Interesting seedings, and I think someone needs to do some
investigative journalism on the results from Trouble In Vegas. In
Vegas, North Texas lost to Harvard who will probably (stress probably)
be the 1 seed out of New England, Harvard beat Illinois, CUT and
Illinois beat Colorado, yadda yadda yadda.
I agree that North Texas is scary as hell, but does that mean they
deserve a #9 seed? Specifically over a team that won one of the deeper
regions (Santa Cruz), a team that beat Wisconsin AND Texas (Pitt),
some bad early season losses at Mardi Gras/Vegas, and with their only
other "big" win coming against Illinois in February?
The RRI is all over the place. Who's Centex looks better?:
Team A: Team B:
13-12 Loss to Florida 13-12 Loss to Georgia
13-12 Loss to Minnesota 13-12 Loss to Colorada
11-10 Loss to Team B 13-9 Loss to Arizona
11-10 Win over Team A
Team A is Illinois, Team B is CUT. Their Vegas results are pretty
ridiculous, Illinois beats Oregon, Oregon beats CUT. Tide beats
Illinois, CUT beats Tide. Harvard beats Illinois, CUT beats Harvard
twice. Illinois beats Colorado by 6, CUT beats Colorado by 2. The end
result is that we're putting more weight into CUT performing poorly at
Stanford and Illinois going to a canceled Terminus over CUT having a
head to win.
Personally, I'd like to put more weight into late season results at
Centex, sectionals and regionals. I'd move Colorado and Texas ahead of
Illinois for winning their region, and bump North Texas just below
Stanford. And personally I am really having a hard time with the
Illinois/CUT ranking. CUT has a higher RRI and I'm going with the head
to head win at Centex.
1) Florida
2) Michigan
3) Wisconsin
4) Colorado
5) Texas
6) Arizona
7) CUT
8) Illinois
9) Santa Cruz
10) Georgia
11) Stanford
12) UNT
13) Harvard
14) UDel
15) Pitt
16) NE2
9) Santa Cruz: I wanna put them higher but I'm having trouble
justifying it with the RRI/ton of losses
13) Harvard: if they win the NE: better RRI, won their section, and
beat Georgia at Centex. Better wins than UDel, who lost their section.
And we can't overlook this and say "well it doesnt matter" because no
one wants to see Pitt in the bottom of their pool.
Handy
Possible NE qualifiers vs. national qualifiers, major wins:
Harvard beat UNT 11-7, Georgia 13-7 and Illinois 11-10
Williams beat UCSC 9-7 and Stanford 13-11
Brown had some very solid wins at Centex but against non-nationals
teams (UBC, Berkeley, NC St, UCSB)
The only time Tufts was tested out of their section they lost a 1
point game to darlings AZ at TiV.
It's going to be hard to seed the teams correctly because the lack of
play outside the region, but I think it would be a mistake to seed
these teams 15-16. Example, UNT.
UNT beats Dartmouth by 1, loses to BC by 1 and gets beat by Harvard
11-7. They have one good win all season (Texas) while they got pushed
around by some good non-nationals teams (Minnesota and ND worked them)
and you're going to seed them at 9 and the teams from the NE at 15,
16? Hmmm... Something doesn't make sense here.
Delaware has notable wins over... Pitt by 2 and got run over by anyone
else worth it, including 13-3 at the hands of Michigan, 13-4 by Ohio
State (who lost 14-10 to Dartmouth) and 15-4 to James Madison 12-7 to
William and Mary. They even lost to Cornell.
I know, I know, the response is "how would you seed them" and I will
come out with my version after NE regionals. I just think it's hasty
to make crack judgments when you haven't seen the teams who are in
it. It smacks of ignorance about what actually happened in terms of
results this year.
Seamus
You, on the other hand, are just being a dick.
moh...@mizzou.edu
2 teams from each region, Strength bids should be very interesting.
Who can get 2 teams into quarters? I would say everyone but ME and NE
has at least an outside shot at 2 teams in quarters. It's something
to watch for. I would bet we're gonna get a regional-strength bid
game somewhere.
-MH
Theodore Hex
> That being said, Bread put a lot of thought into his post.
> You, on the other hand, are just being a dick.
>
No time for love, Dr Jones. Been a busy work day. And it's not like
I'm the biggest dick on here.... I mean, I didn't even call him names
or swear.
quiets...@gmail.com
internet ate it...so these are the short reasonings...
1 - Florida - Duh
2 - Michigan - Beat Wisconsin
3 - Wisconsin - Would be #2 if not for loss to UM
4 - Colorado - More recent win over Colorado
5 - Carleton - Probably should be 6, but here to avoid regional
rematches
6 - Arizona - Probably should be 5, but...
7 - Georgia - Probably should be 8, but...
8 - Illinois - Probably should be 7, but...
9 - Texas - Can't really put them below UCSC
10 - UNT - Same thing
11 - UCSC - Beat Stanford
12 - Stanford - Lost to UCSC
13 - Brown (I'm picking them to win the NE) - Better than Delaware
14 - Harvard - See Brown
15 - Delaware - Beat Pitt
16 - Pitt - Sorry Pool D...
Pools
A
Florida
Illinios
Stanford
Brown
B
Michigan
Georgia
UCSC
Harvard
C
Wisconsin
Arizona
UNT
Delaware
D (ouch)
Colorado
Carleton
Texas
Pitt
Byron Hicks
the head to head match ups that have occured but I don't see those four
teams all being above Texas.
Michigan did beat Wisconsin at Centex but I would still seed the Hodags at
number two.
1. Florida
2. Wisconsin
3. Colorado
4. Michigan
5. Texas
6. Carleton
7. Georgia
8. Arizona
9. Illinois
10. UCSC
11. UNT
12. NE 1
13. Stanford (this just looks crazy to me with their history)
14. Delaware
15. Pitt
16. NE 2
<quiets...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a390a69-ba1c-4e1d...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
quiets...@gmail.com
> I don't agree with your 5-8. It's going to be tough to seed this with all
> the head to head match ups that have occured but I don't see those four
> teams all being above Texas.
>
> Michigan did beat Wisconsin at Centex but I would still seed the Hodags at
> number two.
>
> 1. Florida
> 2. Wisconsin
> 3. Colorado
> 4. Michigan
> 5. Texas
> 6. Carleton
> 7. Georgia
> 8. Arizona
> 9. Illinois
> 10. UCSC
> 11. UNT
> 12. NE 1
> 13. Stanford (this just looks crazy to me with their history)
> 14. Delaware
> 15. Pitt
> 16. NE 2
>
Why does Texas deserve to jump over all 4 of those teams? And why is
UGA above Arizona?
Daniel
Texas has H2H wins over Arizona (2), Colorado, Carleton, and UCSC.
Only loss to the other teams in the middle of the seedings is
Illinois, who I would put just ahead of Texas. Byron, I think you put
Jojah and CUT too high. Both have to be below Arizona I think.
I would do
1. Florida
2. Michigan
3. Wisconsin
4. Illinois
5. Texas
6. Colorado
7. Arizona
8. Carleton
9. Georgia
10. UCSC
bro...@gmail.com
> Why does Texas deserve to jump over all 4 of those teams? And why is
> UGA above Arizona?
Why does Texas deserve to be 9th? You put them there without any logic
other than the teams above "deserve" it. And theres the "cant put them
below Santa Cruz argument" for UNT. Why?
Texas has beaten Arizona twice, CUT and Colorado once. Not to mention
they actually won their region.
Byron Hicks
Texas at Mardi Gras but lost to Carleton at Centex. Georgia beat Carleton by
one at Centex and has lost to Arizona.
The only one of those that I think you have a case to seed over Texas would
be Illinois and I'm not sure an early February tourney win is going to carry
enough weight.
Herschel Walker!
<quiets...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bef6fcd2-0768-4fce...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
kevinyo...@gmail.com
all of these seedings look great BUT . . . . besides Florida everyone
else could arguably be 2-16. Who knows, Harvard could come out of the
NE regionals by winning all their games 15-0 and screw up the RFI and
get seeded higher than 15th or 16th (Highly unlikely but still
possible!) Don't count the NE region out just yet :-D.
Heck. . . I saw the NW Regionals and saw Stanford come and bring their
A-game on Sunday beating Cal, and BC to make it into nationals.
Who knows what will happen come game day but what I'm really excited
for is some UPA Nationals Fantasy Bracket!!!!
I vote that someone who is Internet savy create a website where people
can submit their brackets and win bragging rights for the 08' season!
Wes
these teams play this year, I have to say that I think UCSC deserves a
higher seed. they looked absolutely amazing sunday of regionals, and
I don't think i have ever seen a team that fast except for maybe CUT.
I watched several times as they either ran by or just plain out jumped
UBC's better recievers. I feel bad for the teams that have to play at
nationals. Go slugs
Wes Simons
Dirt
cougaru...@yahoo.com
How often do we use RRI to justify rankings in Ultimate?
Do you consider this an essential tool for "guesstimating" a teams
chances of winning? [based on probability]
What's the point in even calculating a team's RRI if you're not
going to use it seriously?
I've seen countless threads with people arguing one team's probability
of beating some other team, and then backed their claim by pointing to
RRI. Why not just forfeit our arguments based on our own rational as
to who is or isn't the best team, put our faith in modern technology,
and
just take whatever the RRI spits out.
It should be noted that I don't actually believe this to be the best
way to determine seeding, but at least it's straight-forward.
- Doc
UNT
sm...@udel.edu
So if we are just using RRI to determine seedings, that what do you do
in the case of DEL/PITT where PITTs RRI is much higher than Udel and I
think a few other nationals teams but must be seeded lower than Udel?
Merman
Rodney Jacobson
> can submit their brackets and win bragging rights for the 08' season!
Okay. Here you go:
https://scorereport.net/ultimate/nats/instructions.html
I'll create a new thread for the contest.
-Rodney
Rodney Jacobson
> in the case of DEL/PITT where PITTs RRI is much higher than Udel and I
> think a few other nationals teams but must be seeded lower than Udel?
I think this is a flaw with the seeding of series events regardless
even when they are not seeded based on RRI.
There's no guideline for how to handle upsets at regionals, or
sectionals. With no guideline, it's hard to avoid the temptation to
work Delaware into a harder (based on perceived strength rather than
seeding #'s) pool than Pitt - but doing so undermines Delaware's prize
for winning regionals.
Here's the grid:
http://www1.upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?div=18&page=3&tourn=4997
Parity seems to be increasing over the years, I think it would work
quite well to seed the 8 regional winners, then drop the 8 2nd place
teams into the pool opposite their regions winner (pairing pools AC
and BD). This gives every pool two 2nd place regionals teams, and
makes regionals rematches very unlikely.
So if we seed the regional winners on RRI as:
1. Florida
2. Wisconsin
3. Colorado
4. Michigan
5. Texas
6. UCSC
7. NE 1
8. Delaware
We get:
A
Florida
Delaware
Arizona
Stanford
B
Wisconsin
NE 1
Illinois
North Texas
C
Colorado
UCSC
Georgia
Pitt
D
Michigan
Texas
Carleton
NE 2
Hotpants
Those seeding would make UNT the first ever 4th seed* with a legitmate
shot to win their pool. Those guys are a nightmare matchup for
Wisconsin (relatively), and probably would take care of both illinois
and NE#1 without much trouble. Not arguing for a higher seed, but the
late addition of Matt Randall renders all their non-series results
irrelevent, and pretty much guaruntees UNT is going to outperform
their initial placement.
*Since I've been following college ultimate, 6 years.
Jon.B....@gmail.com
further define the seedings.
Series Rule: No team can be seeded below a team they finished ahead of
at regionals.
Region Rule: Regional winners from a region winning a strengh bid must
be seeded above regional winners from regions not winning strength
bids and the same for runners up.
This makes the top 4:
Florida
Wisconsin
Colorado
UCSC
I'd seed them in that order.
The bottom 4:
UNT
Illinois
Pitt
NE2
I'll seed them in that order, UNT beating Illinois at Mardi Gras.
Switch them if you like.
The middle 8 are where it gets interesting.
I'll go, in order:
Michigan
Texas
Arizona
Carleton
Georgia
Stanford
NE1
Delaware
Giving a full seeding of:
1 Florida
2 Wisconsin
3 Colorado
4 UCSC
5 Michigan
6 Texas
7 Arizona
8 Carleton
9 Georgia
10 Stanford
11 NE1
12 Delaware
13 UNT
14 Illinois
15 Pitt
16 NE2
With the pools being:
Pool A
Florida
Carleton
Delaware
UNT
Pool B
Wisconsin
Arizona
NE1
Illinois
Pool C
Colorado
Texas
Stanford
Pitt
Pool D
UCSC
Michigan
Georgia
NE2
Daniel
Why is this your rule?
Regions winning strength bids are already rewarded by automatically
having at least 2 bids to nationals for the following year. Why should
they also receive preferential seeding based on the performance of
their region the previous year? UCSC doesn't deserve an automatic 1
seed in their pool because Stanford made semis last year. They are a
perfect example of why you can't use strength bids as a seeding
rationale.
Let's stick to ranking based on current season performance/record.
JosephD...@gmail.com
nationals. However I don't see how anyone is putting them in the top
8 in seedings. Their season just does not come close to stacking up
to many of the other teams. The only reason I can see putting them
that high is on the virtue of winning their region. In the past
purely winning the NW might earn someone a seed like that, but this is
not that year. At Centex pool play the NW teams went 3-18 against
none northwest opponents. Their three wins came against UCSD, UCSB,
and Georgia tech. None of the 5 teams there could scrape one win
against any team from another region that would end up going to
natties. I just don't see how coming on top of that region alone can
pump UCSC into the top 8.
Joey
Sc
> further define the seedings.
> Region Rule: Regional winners from a region winning a strengh bid must
> be seeded above regional winners from regions not winning strength
> bids and the same for runners up.
>
> This makes the top 4:
>
> Florida
> Wisconsin
> Colorado
> UCSC
I don't think that's what strength bids are meant to indicate. In any
case, they certainly aren't representative this year. Here are the
records of the top NW teams vs. the current Nationals field not from
their own region:
1. UCSC 1-9
2. Stanford 1-4
3. UBC 2-7
4. Cal 2-6
5. Oregon 4-6
That's a combined record of 10-32, or a 31% win percentage. The two
qualifiers have a combined 15% win percentage vs. qualifiers from
other regions.
Jon.B....@gmail.com
> Let's stick to ranking based on current season performance/record
We use past season's performance to give out strength bids, why not
seeding?
Mike Gerics
---that's a good idea.
perfect idea, i'd go so far as to say.
basing seeds on strength bids?????? that doesn't make any sense.
Mike Gerics
> none northwest opponents.
----yeah...the west sucks this year.....definately don't give teams a high
seed from out there just because they won their weak regions.
right?
Mike Gerics
> seeding?
---i see your jokingly serious question.
that's what it is...right?
Handy
Harvard beat both Illinois and UNT this year and although you can say
that one player renders their (UNT's) regular season irrelevant (which
I strongly doubt) can you point to any wins that UNT has, excluding
Texas, that suggest that they are a nightmare matchup for Wisco, or
for that matter, Illinois? It looks to me like their regular season
has been rather unamazing with wins above mediocre teams and losses to
anyone good with a win against LPC breaking that mold but offset by a
loss to Boston College at the same tourney. While Wiscosin had to
play the likes of Carleton, Iowa, Minnesota at regionals UNT was
playing Texas and... Rice?
I'm not saying UNT isn't good, I'm just wondering where you're getting
your data. Is it just "a feeling" you have by watching them or have
you seen the NE teams and the ME teams and UNT and making an actual
assessment?
Jay Schulkin
like he said,
Mike Gerics
> that one player renders their (UNT's) regular season irrelevant
--i'm sorry to have missed this.......but what does "one player renders
their regular season irrelevant" mean????
were they without at teammate during the season?
schmidtacular
The one thing that really grinds my gears about the UPA series is the
process for awarding strength bids. The UPA waits until the last
minute to award size bids based on the size of each region during the
current season, why don't they do so with strength bids? I'm the first
guy to hate on RRI, but I wouldn't have anything against them using it
to determine which regions get strength bids that year because it is a
helluva lot more accurate than going from last year's finishes.
Just think about how many teams have done well at nationals (or even
just attended) and the following year fell off the map. Indiana?
Michigan State? UCSB? Oregon? I could go on all day. The point is, if
the UPA is going to actually make nationals the most competitive
tournament of the season (or at least as competitive as possible) they
are going to have to base everything on the current, eligible
participants.
Otherwise we may see Cultimate just completely take over everything...
Jon.B....@gmail.com
Tell me where you disagree with the following reasoning:
Mechanism A is designed to reward performance.
Mechanism B is designed to reward performance.
Something that is appropriate for consideration in Mechanism A
analysis is appropriate for consideration in Mechanism B analysis.
schmidtacular
So therefore when some element in mechanism A is flawed, that flaw
will then carry over to mechanism B.
Casey
Quit abusing that poor straw man.
In the unlikely event that you are actually as obtuse as your portray
yourself, I'll spell it out.
Mechanism A, allocation of strength bids, is designed to grade
regional performance and reward stronger regions' performance
Mechanism B, seeding a specific tournament, is designed to grade
specific teams and reward specific teams' performance.
Many despise the process for awarding strength bids (Mech. A), but we
lack national qualifying tournaments or (outside of individual head to
head games played) any other national measure of cross-regional
performance. Therefore, the only way to gauge performance of the
'best' teams from each region is to look at the most recent _complete_
data, where the best teams from each region are all gathered -- the
previous National tournament. Yes it's a stretch to compare college
regional performance from year to year, but no one else has offered up
any solution isn't at least 50% voodoo. And if someone has, please
point me to it, I wouldl really be interested in a better allocation
rubric.
However, you are quite silly to conclude that because Mech. A is used
as the best, but imperfect, solution to the problem of fairly awarding
bids to a national tournament, it should also be used to rank teams
inside of this national tournament. Especially when there are much
more elegant solutions to that separate problem, such as head to head,
common opponents, etc.
Short answer, the current strength bid allocation scheme is currently
the best workable solution, and I'm rather resigned to that. Your
straw man ploy was pretty weak. One must be willingly myopic to see
such broad comparisons without their glaringly obvious holes.
Pontificatingly yours,
Casey
Hotpants
observation, no reason to be a dick about it. Have you seen UNT with
and without Randall, and understand how it changes their team? Have
you ever personally matched up against Wisconsins current top players
and understand what they want to do to win? Were you ever in
attendence at a major tournament this year (like centex) and seen all
the top teams play?
I'm not going to give a scouting report on UNT. But if you don't
understand why they would give Wisconsin trouble relative to the other
possible 4 seeds; then theres really no point in us beginning the
conversation.
schmidtacular
like Centex and Vegas to allow the UPA to figure out-- at least more
accurately than the current system-- which regions have stronger
teams? Wouldn't a new system like that also encourage teams to get out
there and start playing in these larger tournaments and help make a
name for their region in order to claim a strength bid?
Sure, maybe one could argue that going to all these big tournaments
would be an unfair advantage for some teams in closer proximity or
with more $$/more generous schools. However I would have to say that
this is just the reality of the modern college ultimate season. The
better teams generally are willing to sacrifice more to go to these
larger tournaments and prepare to win games--which makes them
inherently stronger. Generally RRI at the top is very accurate at the
end of the regular season before the series starts anyway. The UPA
could surely determine which regions have more teams in the top 25
from this data. There can also be room for the series coordinators to
vote.
schmidtacular
> Whats with the condescending attitude bro? I was just making an
> observation, no reason to be a dick about it. Have you seen UNT with
> and without Randall, and understand how it changes their team? Have
> you ever personally matched up against Wisconsins current top players
> and understand what they want to do to win? Were you ever in
> attendence at a major tournament this year (like centex) and seen all
> the top teams play?
Seeding, especially among teams that have both won and lost games
against top teams, really needs to be about who is the most consistent
and is peaking later in the season against these top teams. UNT is a
great team and they did beat UT at sectionals, however they did not
win their region. Maybe they do match up well against a team like
Wisco, but they did not cash the check at the right time in order to
give them an extraordinary seed. I wouldn't put them below a team from
the NE or ME or Illinois (whom they beat this season), but if you're
going to put Texas as low as #6, there really isnt much room for
argument that UNT can be much higher than 8 or 9--especially if you
want to keep them out of the same pool as Texas.
Either way, last time I checked, you have to go through the top dogs
in pool play to claim any sort of high placing at Natties--the format
may give the high seeds an easier road to quarters, but it is far from
a guarantee.
Mike Gerics
> > We use past season's performance to give out strength bids, why not
> > seeding?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>
> ---i see your jokingly serious question.
> that's what it is...right?
Tell me where you disagree with the following reasoning:
Mechanism A is designed to reward performance.
Mechanism B is designed to reward performance.
Something that is appropriate for consideration in Mechanism A
analysis is appropriate for consideration in Mechanism B analysis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---????????????????tell you what?????????????????????
Casey
Like I said, 50% voodoo. :)
I, among others, prefer a system based more on objectivity and less on
subjectivity.
schmidtacular
> I, among others, prefer a system based more on objectivity and less on
> subjectivity.
But when you are considering the different factors that make certain
regions stronger than others, aren't those factors pretty subjective
anyway?
If you think about it, the strength bids assigned at nationals really
come down to how one team matches up against another in quarters, not
how one region is significantly stronger. For all we know certain
teams that lose in quarters to one team may have actually been strong
enough to beat another team that advanced to semis, but simply got
screwed by their quarters matchup. We are then forced to dole out
strength bids based pretty much on how teams perform in one game,
maybe 2, the year before it even matters.
Wouldn't it be less subjective to look at results of many games over
the course of an entire season and make your decision based on that?
Sure, you are still using the same sort of subjective system, but you
are at least factoring in a significant number of games in the current
season, rather than a couple games in the previous season.
Head Beagle
experience, I can say that they are an entirely different team with
him than they are without him. A few years ago I watch South
Regionals. Ark vs. UNT in the game to go to the game to go. In the
first half the weather was crappy. Windy, raining, muddy, wet. Matt
was having a hard time completing his hucks and especially his hammers
and Arkansas was hanging with UNT, they may have even won half. During
the second half the weather cleared up, suddenly those 70 yard hammers
were on the money and game over (sad day, I was rooting for Arkansas).
I've rarely seen anything like it. In this case, the weather took him
out of his game, so if that happens at nationals, I would say UNT is
screwed. No offense to the rest of the guys (also, I haven't seen them
this year), but Randalls throws are (were) important enough to that
team to make that kind of difference.
Note: This isn't someone pumping up a friend/teamate. I doubt Matt
even knows my name and he only might recognize me in person. I have
just always been impressed with his play. And, I hand blocked him at
Club Centex a few years ago and it made me happy.
Daniel
We get it. UNT is better with Derek Zoolander. This has nothing to do
with nationals seedings.
Casey
Valid criticisms of the current allocation system.
Very poor choice of a replacement system.
I think you should look up the word subjective, because replacing a
system where actual results dictate allocation with a system where
"mak[ing] your decision" dictates allocation is increasing the
subjectivity of said system. Perhaps you confused subjective with the
word arbitrary, or mercurial.
nichol...@gmail.com
> We get it. UNT is better with Derek Zoolander. This has nothing to do
> with nationals seedings.
Agreed. Matt Randall is an extremely talented player (and possibly
the prettiest male model in ultimate) and has the ability to make UNT
an extremely dangerous team; however, you gotta base seedings off of
results. Otherwise Team X could make an argument that their top
player was nursing injury Y all regular season.
Kohn
dmattr...@gmail.com
Ok get over this idea that I am going to change the seedings for UNT
at Nationals. Yes I did come back this year to help the team advance
to Nationals and to compete at nationals, but that is not saying the
whole teams rides on how I perform. If you are not aware there is a
guy buy the name of David Richardson (D-RICH) that has better throws
than I do and a guy by the name of Kevin Richardson (K-RICH) that is a
much better athlete. These are the two guys plus many many more that
will make a difference at Nationals. SHIT I have been traveling with
my girlfriend and laying my ass on the beaches of Egypt so what makes
you think I will make a difference. Thanks for the boost of
confidence but I came back to fill a role for the team not to be a
superstar. Give the credit to the rest of UNT and their captains. K-
RICH for Callahan.
Matt Randall
christoph...@gmail.com
step it up when the weather got better, but I think that was a
coincidence. We really just stepped it up when we realized we were
down 13-8 (I think) in a game to 15. But the best part of that whole
post was that we lost the game anyway. we rallied back but I think
lost 15-13. maybe I didn't read that post very carefully, but it sure
seemed to imply that we came back and won, which is wrong. I'm sure
if I am wrong, someone will be very quick to correct me. Arkansas had
our number that year, in the biggest possible way. Bastards. Memories
of me yelling at Ajax to get his "B-Team" players off the field are
not relevant to this discussion. :)
And why the fuck does everyone keep spelling his name Randle? He is a
game changing player. he is one of my friends, so i'm biased. but I'll
say it again and again - he is a game changer. He is also a little
bitch and travels to Egypt to lay on beaches. I think if anything,
the fact that he lays on beaches with his girlfriend should merit
giving UNT a higher seed at nationals. Hell, rank 'em first. Who else
lays on a beach in Egypt? Alright then.
Congrats to UNT for making history in the little d. First time to
nationals. Enjoy it, can't wait to see everyone there, including all
the alumni. I know lots are going, but is THE CASEY going to be
attending? Do the work, casey... do the work. And just to leave no
doubt, we will be on the sidelines drunk and heckling. I'll probably
call someone a b-team player again, but then I'll just blame it on Doc
who everyone on here seems to hate anyway, so it sounds like a fair
deal.
Seeding are fun to discuss, but void of merit. I'm just excited to see
UNT in the discussion.
jealous... very jealous. again, congrats UNT and UT - represent the
dirty south.
church
morfin
1 game is more important than a season's worth of results...
1 Michigan - Will Neff skies everybody
2 Pittsburgh - Just manhandled Wisconsin in the consolation rounds of
Centex
3 Oregon - Dominated Wisconsin at Centex and scored 12 in quarters
last year
4 Carleton - Anverts murder in thin air and the cheaters will get it
done
5 Texas - 7 straight quarterfinal finishes just won't get it done
6 UCSB - Black Tide will use the vert stack to perfection
7 Stanford - primed to lose semifinals to the eventual champion again
8 Illinois - most underrated team in ultimate
9 UNT - K-Rich will dominate as the best receiver in the game
10 Minnesota - Beastmaster will play out of his mind
11 Georgia - after throwing the finals game of AC, they should be
fresh
12 Arizona - Sunburn will make a run late, but probably suck as
injuries pile up
13 Colorado - Home field air advantage will be the difference, but
loss to Whitewater at MLC really hurts their seed
14 Florida - Kurt is DQ'd for his anti-semitic remarks and Florida's
seed drops accordingly
15 Wisconsin - Now that the undefeated season is broken, they will go
down easy
16 Delaware - because they just suck
JayA...@gmail.com
Did I miss something? Or did you come up with these 3 weeks ago?
UCSB?
Oregon?
Minnesota?
H
attend nationals instead of the NE teams that are playing "NE
Nationals" this weekend. It's now a 17 team format, but they think
it's worth it to include perennial favorites who deserve to be there.
h
Bulb
They don't suck, they just don't know how to win any games at
Nationals. Unless they're playing a team who won it all in either of
the previous 2 years... they're 3-0 in those games.
zaebo...@yahoo.com
Is that a counterpoint for why Delaware is good?
Bulb
More of an ironic observation. They still deserve a low seed. Unless
there are party seedings... they're at least in the top half, if not
top 4.
Eric Brach
Wisconsin
Colorado
Michigan
5- Texas
Arizona
Georgia
Carleton
9- UCSC
North Texas
Illinois
Stanford
13- Delaware
Pitt
Dartmouth
Harvard
Notes:
1- I came from the Metro East. I put ME and NE as the bottom 4, b/c I
think that's where they belong. Screw regional bias.
2- I live in Austin and I think that there is a huge possibility that
UT will not finish in the top 8. I know a few of those guys and I
like them; TUFF is certainly capable of winning great games.... but
also capable of tanking horribly. They lost at sectionals, they
nearly lost in the SECOND ROUND of regionals..... all that said they
should be seeded somewhere 5-8.
3- Stanford is a joke... they could just as easily be the 14th seed.
Or the 16th.
julius...@live.com
unfortunately I haven't been able to see a single game yet this year,
so my seedings are based purely on team's records. I took the
following 3 main stats into consideration: 1) winning percentage
against other teams that made it to Nationals, 2) winning percentage
against teams that didn't make Nationals, and 3) average winning
percentage against common opponents. In each of these 3 categories, I
gave the best team 16 points and the worst team 1 point. I then added
up the points for all 3 categories.
Here is how things shake out:
Winning percentage against other teams at Nationals (school,
percentage, points):
Florida 91.67 16
Michigan 83.33 15
Wisconsin 75.00 14
North Texas 60.00 13
Texas 54.55 12
Colorado 53.85 11
Arizona 50.00 10
Carleton 46.15 9
Illinois 41.67 8
Georgia 37.50 7
Stanford 36.36 6
Delaware 33.33 5
Pittsburgh 33.33 4
Harvard 30.00 3
UCSC 28.57 2
Dartmouth 0.00 1
Winning percentage against teams that didn't make it to Nationals
(school, percentage, points):
Florida 100.00 16
Wisconsin 100.00 16
Texas 96.43 14
Georgia 92.00 13
Illinois 90.48 12
Colorado 88.89 11
Michigan 88.89 11
Dartmouth 87.50 9
Arizona 86.67 8
Carleton 80.00 7
North Texas 80.00 7
Delaware 79.41 5
Pittsburgh 78.79 4
Harvard 73.33 3
Stanford 70.00 2
UCSC 56.52 1
Average winning percentage against common opponents is a bit more
complex, so I built a grid to help me figure it out.
FL Wisc TX MI CO GA
Pitt IL CUT Dart AZ Stan UNT
Harv Del UCSC Average
FL - 92.86 93.33 92.31 90.00 90.91
94.12 100.00 93.75 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 92.86
100.00 94.74 95.66
WI 100.00 - 95.83 71.43 85.00 85.71
100.00 88.24 100.00 100.00 82.35 94.74 100.00
100.00 33.33 93.33 88.66
TX 72.73 85.00 - 66.67 80.00 90.00
90.91 78.57 73.33 83.33 84.62 76.92 87.50
78.57 75.00 75.00 79.88
MI 70.00 100.00 66.67 - 71.43 60.00
78.95 88.89 85.71 75.00 66.67 100.00 100.00
66.67 71.43 75.00 78.43
CO 62.50 68.42 73.33 75.00 - 66.67
66.67 61.54 64.29 75.00 62.50 46.67 66.67
75.00 100.00 53.85 67.87
GA 76.92 50.00 60.00 76.92 50.00 -
77.78 66.67 50.00 83.33 50.00 61.54 80.00
85.71 85.71 58.33 67.53
Pitt 53.33 53.85 58.33 60.00 70.00 60.00
- 70.00 64.29 81.82 58.33 72.73 60.00
68.75 90.00 57.14 65.24
IL 77.78 58.82 78.57 100.00 46.15 58.33
71.43 - 70.00 57.14 38.46 56.25 66.67
57.14 66.67 50.00 63.56
CUT 58.82 66.67 55.56 33.33 58.82 55.56 55.56
75.00 - 80.00 58.82 61.90 88.89 75.00
N/A 58.82 63.05
Dart 33.33 60.00 40.00 66.67 60.00 66.67
70.00 42.86 57.14 - 50.00 62.50 66.67
61.54 100.00 60.00 59.82
AZ 40.00 66.67 70.00 20.00 75.00 83.33
50.00 57.14 46.67 71.43 - 66.67 60.00
72.73 50.00 38.46 57.87
Stan 40.00 59.09 57.14 54.55 64.71 50.00 60.00
50.00 66.67 66.67 55.00 - 57.14 50.00
N/A 50.00 55.78
UNT 40.00 71.43 83.33 50.00 77.78 0.00 57.14
28.57 42.86 33.33 66.67 44.44 - 83.33
0.00 50.00 48.59
Harv 36.36 18.18 28.57 60.00 41.67 30.77 52.94
22.22 36.36 66.67 42.86 40.00 88.89 -
100.00 45.45 47.40
Del 33.33 25.00 66.67 50.00 25.00 57.14
63.64 0.00 N/A 50.00 33.33 N/A 0.00
85.71 - 0.00 37.68
UCSC 36.36 28.57 38.10 27.27 31.25 12.50 31.25
42.86 33.33 0.00 33.33 26.32 33.33 44.44
0.00 - 27.93
Average 58.60 65.46 66.21 63.61 66.97 61.38 71.19
63.82 65.47 74.90 62.79 68.03 78.65 74.41
72.68 61.44
So, for example, Florida won 92.86% of its games against opponents it
had in common with Wisconsin. Wisconsin, however, won 100.00% of its
games against opponents it had in common with Florida. Yes, I know
that this doesn't include head-to-head matchups. Another example:
Carleton won 75.00% of its games against opponents it had in common
with Illinois. Illinois won 70.00% of games against opponents it had
in common with Carleton.
Florida 95.66% 16
Wisconsin 88.66% 15
Texas 79.88% 14
Michigan 78.43% 13
Colorado 67.87% 12
Georgia 67.53% 11
Pittsburgh 65.24% 10
Illinois 63.56% 9
Carleton 63.05% 8
Dartmouth 59.82% 7
Arizona 57.87% 6
Stanford 55.78% 5
North Texas 48.59% 4
Harvard 47.40% 3
Delaware 37.68% 2
UCSC 27.93% 1
Combining the above three categories gives the following rankings
(with points shown):
1 Florida 48
2 Wisconsin 45
3 Texas 40
4 Michigan 39
5 Colorado 34
6 Georgia 31
7 Illinois 29
8 Arizona 24
9 Carleton 24
10 North Texas 24
11 Pittsburgh 18
12 Dartmouth 17
13 Stanford 13
14 Delaware 12
15 Harvard 9
16 UCSC 4
Even though Arizona, Carleton, and North Texas all have 24 points, I'm
giving the 8th position to Arizona as they own a head-to-head win over
Carleton. Carleton gets the nod over North Texas as CUT won 89% of
their games against opponents it had in common with North Texas,
whereas North Texas only won 43% of their games against opponents it
had in common with Carleton.
According to these rankings, pools are pretty clear up to the 9th
slot. However, Pittsburgh has to be below Delaware and Stanford has
to be below UCSC. Also, I'm bumping Dartmouth above North Texas in
order to avoid Texas and North Texas being in the same pool.
Likewise, I'm putting Pittsburgh below Harvard to avoid having
Delaware and Pittsburgh in the same pool. So, my final seedings are:
1. Florida
2. Wisconsin
3. Texas
4. Michigan
5. Colorado
6. Georgia
7. Illinois
8. Arizona
9. Carleton
10. Dartmouth
11. North Texas
12. Delaware
13. Harvard
14. Pittsburgh
15. UCSC
16. Stanford
Which gives the following pools:
A B C D
Florida Wisconsin Texas Michigan
Arizona Illinois Georgia Colorado
Delaware North Texas Dartmouth Carleton
Harvard Pittsburgh UCSC Stanford
Any thoughts? See ya in Boulder!!!
adam wiseman
Pool D, lol.
Handy
Wow... I don't necessarily agree with these pools, but I love the
process. You and Rodney need to talk it out.
-Handy
julius...@live.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Care to elaborate? What do you disagree with? I'm not trying to be
antagonistic...just trying to get a discussion going...
Ryan Thompson
Every team in Pool D could beat every team in Pool C.
julius...@live.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Care to elaborate? What don't you agree with? I'm not trying to be
antagonistic...just trying to get a discussion going!
BJ
you think good
JosephD...@gmail.com
created equal, which their not. Consolation games are not played the
same same way. If you're not in it to win it's just not the same.
For example, at centex, Pitts loss to Colorado in Quarters means a lot
more than their win over Wisco in the consolation bracket. I wouldn't
go so far as to say those games are meaningless but I think any system
that counts the 13th/14th place game as being the same as quarters,
semis, or finals is flawed. You want to see how good teams are, see
where they finish in tournaments. See what teams win, when its on the
line.
acle...@gmail.com
seedings look like, so....
Rather than taking all 16 teams, how about taking just the 8
'candidate' teams (the top available team from each region, so after
florida is seeded, georgia moves up to take their place in the
candidate list. Once georgia is seeded you are down to 7 teams to
consider...) and assign 1-8 points based on those teams rather than
the full 16. also modify the criteria to exclude teams that have
already been seeded (so once florida is placed, wins/losses against
them to not factor into the seeding any more).
This should prevent problems from arising with handling upsets. The
drawback is that it punishes the team that got upset considerably.
The benefit is that it gives the region winner the seed that they
deserve based on their complete season, and the regional runner up the
seed they deserve based off of losing to the region winner.
On May 6, 3:05 pm, juliusjone...@live.com wrote:
sm...@udel.edu
You say see where teams finish in tournaments, so at Centex Pitt
finished higher than Wisconsin. You can not discredit wins just
because a team 'didn't try' or because 'they rested their starters'.
It has been said time and time again on here that you can only go by
Wins and Losses, not by the circumstances of each win and each loss.
Merman
julius...@live.com
I'd say you are only partially right. Based on the seedings, Colorado
(Pool D) should beat Georgia (Pool C), and Carleton (Pool D) should
beat Dartmouth (Pool C). I think you are wrong about UCSC and
Stanford. UCSC beat Stanford the last 3 times they played by an
average of 4.3 pts/game (not exactly close). Texas and Michigan are a
toss-up; they didn't play each other and own identical records against
their common opponents. Texas beat both Colorado and Carleton, but
lost to Stanford (go figure). Georgia beat both Colorado and
Carleton. UCSC and Stanford beat up on each other, but UCSC won the
last three times.
Yes, Pool D is a bit insane, but that is partially because of Stanford
finishing below UCSC. Both Stanford and Pittsburgh should be seeded
considerably higher, but I stuck where they are by virtue of their
losses to UCSC and Delaware, respectively.
BJ
this is interesting because it makes the series seem like one
continuous tournament. while you obviously must do well in sectionals
and subsequently regionals to move on, your finish carries no more
weight than any other tournament throughout the year.
degnan...@gmail.com
A win in the front door semi's is better than a win in the 5th place
bracket. The entire mindset for both teams top to bottom is entirely
different. Pitt deserves credit for a win against one of the best
teams in the country, no one contests that. But when it comes to
seeding Nationals you take a look at a team's entire season, previous
Nationals, etc.
Which gets back to the very long, earnestly thought-out post above
with wins, losses, %s, etc. Joey (and I) disagree with one of that
post's assumptions: that all W's are equal and all L's are equal.
We're not playing the 'So and so was injured' card, we're playing the
'Wisconsin lost one pool play game and one elimination game all
season' card.
What I wrote to Kula was that the top four are (in order) FL, Wisc,
Colorado, Michigan, and after that it's very difficult. Glad I don't
have to seed this mess.
degs
julius...@live.com
You are totally right that my post assumes that all W's are equal and
all L's are equal. I agree that a loss in the semis of a major
tourney isn't the same as a loss in a 13th place game. But, that just
adds another layer of subjectivity.
As to your top four, I don't see any reason to stick Colorado in over
Texas. Texas owns a better record against teams at Nationals, teams
not at Nationals, AND a big head-to-head win (13-9) over Colorado.
You say that seedings have to account for a team's record over the
entire season; the records say Texas should get the nod over Colorado.
degnan...@gmail.com
> You are totally right that my post assumes that all W's are equal and
> all L's are equal. I agree that a loss in the semis of a major
> tourney isn't the same as a loss in a 13th place game. But, that just
> adds another layer of subjectivity.
>
> As to your top four, I don't see any reason to stick Colorado in over
> Texas. Texas owns a better record against teams at Nationals, teams
> not at Nationals, AND a big head-to-head win (13-9) over Colorado.
> You say that seedings have to account for a team's record over the
> entire season; the records say Texas should get the nod over Colorado.
Several things to consider....
- Previous year's Nationals. Texas lost in Quarters. Colorado made
Finals.
- Colorado was missing super stud Martin Cochran at Stanford. (Yes, I
know I deplored this tactic earlier, but it's not my entire argument.)
He is worth the point-diff in that game.
- Texas has not had a stellar UPA Series. Losing Sectionals & a 1-pt
win in Quarters of Regionals... not impressive.
You could also stick them in the same pool (C 3/6 or D 4/5) and let
them work it out. Problem is you could say this for many many pairs
and you can't get them all to work. However the seeds work out I think
CU will finish ahead of Texas in Boulder.
Rodney Jacobson
> following 3 main stats into consideration: 1) winning percentage
> against other teams that made it to Nationals, 2) winning percentage
> against teams that didn't make Nationals, and 3) average winning
> percentage against common opponents.
The problem with this sort of system is that it is comparing winning
percentages against uncommon opponents. Teams with weaker schedules
will be overseeded.
It's easy to see that you'd like to get your team out to a few B-Level
tournaments to raise your winning percentage. You want to avoid
playing Florida, Wisconsin, or whoever the top teams are.
Even the "common opponents" here has this problem, you'd rather have
your common opponents include many B teams rather than top level
teams.
Going 2-1 against Keene State-B should be worse than 1-1 vs Oregon.
acle...@gmail.com
Whether seedings should be predictive of finish or reactive to the
season is a philosophical debate that is interesting in its own right.
The fact is, however, that the seeding guidelines stipulate that the
order of regional finish must be respected by the seedings.
Consequently it is impossible for the seedings to be predictive when
upsets happen at regional tournaments.
degnan...@gmail.com
Colorado (5).
Handy
> Finals.
Beau is gone, so you can throw that result out the window. The rest
is possibly true, but when you lose the most dominant athlete in the
college game, you have to account for that somehow in the same way you
account for other factors.
> However the seeds work out I think
> CU will finish ahead of Texas in Boulder.
Seeding is NOT meant to be predictive (!) so this doesn't factor in at
all.
degnan...@gmail.com
>
> > However the seeds work out I think
> > CU will finish ahead of Texas in Boulder.
>
> Seeding is NOT meant to be predictive (!) so this doesn't factor in at
> all.
It didn't factor in, I'm just saying regardless of the seeds.... CU
will finish higher than Texas.
Ryan Thompson
3rd vs. 9th at Centex. 1st vs 2nd at Sectionals.
Colorado beat the same Pitt team that knocked Texas out of Sunday at
Centex.
julius...@live.com
I neglected to say in my original post that I didn't include games
against B, C, X, Y, etc. teams in calculating any of the winning
percentages.
So I took a quick look this morning at the strengths of each team's
common opponents. I averaged the UPA Top 25 rankings from May 6th for
each team's common opponents. Here is how the list breaks out:
1. UCSC 21.9
2. Carleton 22.4
3. Wisconsin 26.1
4. Stanford 27.8
5. Florida 28.6
6. Colorado 30.3
7. Arizona 31.1
8. Texas 32.1
9. Pittsburgh 32.6
10. Georgia 33.3
11. North Texas 34.4
12. Harvard 35.5
13. Illinois 37.0
14. Michigan 45.5
15. Delaware 50.4
16. Dartmouth 52.0
The average UPA ranking of UCSC's opponents is 21.9, Carleton's is
22.4, etc. UCSC and Carleton definitely seemed to have played the
toughest common opponents, and Michigan, Delaware, and Dartmouth are
the obvious slackers. To what extent though are these numbers
governed by the quality of teams that teams HAVE to play in sectionals
and regionals? For example, is Michigan's low number a function of
the fact that they had to play Kalamazoo in sectionals? I looked at
the numbers again throwing out all results for common opponents from
both sectionals and regionals to see if there is any clear evidence
for teams choosing to schedule weak opponents. Here are the numbers
that exclude sectionals and regionals:
1. Carleton 21.8
2. UCSC 21.8
3. Wisconsin 22.2
4. Florida 22.2
5. Stanford 25.5
6. North Texas 25.5
7. Colorado 27.5
8. Illinois 30.0
9. Texas 30.9
10. Pittsburgh 31.5
11. Harvard 32.6
12. Arizona 34.3
13. Georgia 36.6
14. Michigan 42.7
15. Dartmouth 52.6
16. Delaware 54.6
I think those numbers suggest that teams that make it to Nationals
aren't going out of their way to avoid tough opponents. You can argue
about Michigan, Dartmouth, and Delaware. Of those three teams though,
only Michigan is a high seed (according to my seedings), and I haven't
heard anybody arguing that they shouldn't be somewhere in the top 5.
Maybe Dartmouth and Delaware are seeded slightly too high (according
to my seedings), but it is hard to drop them even lower given the fact
that teams that finished below then at regionals have to be seeded
below them.
BladingSawBladeWithBladesComingOutOfItAndStuff
i know.
Sc
Texas actually has a better record at Centex than Colorado. Colorado's
result is more impressive, but the difference is not as much as you
might think. Only Florida won more games than Texas at Centex. As for
Sectionals, that argument would be legitimate if Colorado and Texas
played in the same section. You also left out Texas' higher Stanford
placement (3rd vs. 9th).
> Colorado beat the same Pitt team that knocked Texas out of Sunday at
> Centex.
Common opponents are mostly useful when no head-to-head results exist;
not the case here. In any case, common opponents are a wash --
Colorado has lost to Carleton, who Texas beat at Centex.
I tend to favor late-season results over early season results, so
Colorado gets an edge in that category, but H2H is really the best
seeding metric between two comparable teams. Based on Colorado's
history, I would not be surprised to see them finish higher than
Texas, but that shouldn't necessarily determine seeding. Side note,
all of the probable top five are the flagship public schools of their
respective states.
Ryan Thompson
Colorado also beat Carleton at Centex - in pool play, not the B
bracket.
Doctor.B...@gmail.com
be at the number #17 seed. We've been training bad decisions and we
can turn the disc over at will. If you're in doubt that Dartmouth
should be #17, check out our highlight video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI
Check out #33.
love,
cobbles
socks
Agreed. This would be an improvement in many ways-- first, the
tournament would be better off if we could move away from an awkward
16-team frankenstein into a clean and orderly 17-team format, and
furthermore i think most teams would be better off if 'Bye' was seeded
over dartmouth. I can definitively say that having a bye would be
much harder than playing dartmouth, so there's no reason that
dartmouth should be seeded above a bye.
Other things that should be seeded above dartmouth:
-most chess teams
-dartmouth b
-a team of monkeys playing savage (both meanings)
-mid-90s DoG
-two stumps and a lobster
-not harvard
Give it some thought,
Socks
Daag Alemayehu
> On May 7, 9:54 pm, Doctor.Benton...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I liked Julius' seedings a lot, but I'd really pull for Dartmouth to
> > be at the number #17 seed. We've been training bad decisions and we
> > can turn the disc over at will. If you're in doubt that Dartmouth
> > should be #17, check out our highlight video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI
>
> tournament would be better off if we could move away from an awkward
> 16-team frankenstein into a clean and orderly 17-team format, and
> furthermore i think most teams would be better off if 'Bye' was seeded
> over dartmouth. I can definitively say that having a bye would be
> much harder than playing dartmouth, so there's no reason that
> dartmouth should be seeded above a bye.
I thought it was the ME's job to flood RSD with self-depricating humor
in the weeks leading up to champies?
oobetheloo
They had a meeting to discuss it. Went kind of like this:
"So I say, when those anonymously evil players from other regions
start bashing us, we take it to the next level and make ourselves seem
even WORSE! What do you say, guys?"
"It sounds like pretty well-worn territory."
"The whole thing feels kind of trite, I say we forget it."
"Is that how everybody feels?"
"Yeah."
Maybe next year.