To answer the question of how well Truman State is playing we have beaten OU (Mardi Gras) and Wash U (Frostbite). We have also lost to Mizzou (Huck Finn), Arkansas (Frostbite) and lost to Kansas 13-6 at Sectionals after KU took half at 7-6. Basically we are young, inexperienced team (1 senior, 3 juniors, a bunch of sophs, and a couple freshman) who can play really well at times and really pathetic at times. However, our hammer-fakes are always amazing and we heckle people who fall for them.
On Apr 14, 4:56 pm, Duchamanos <justhib...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's pretty rough to win your section and get seeded 6th at regionals > (in the highest estimate). Anyone from the Bama section want to make > a case for Auburn being seeded higher?
Princeton won their section and will likely be seeded 9th at ME Regionals. Some sections are just stronger than others.
> Winning your section has to be worth something. Ok so it wasn't the > strongest section but they did go undefeated at the qualifying > tournament. 2 teams per section ahead of you, maybe. Not 3.
Yeah... no. You should seed by expected finish*, based on the current season's results. Is it reasonable to think 3 teams from section X will finish ahead of all teams from section Y? Well let's see...
At 2006 ME Regionals, 3 teams from the Colonial section finished above every team from the Metro NY section.
At 2007 ME Regionals, 3 teams from the Colonial section finished above every team from the East Penn section; and top of that, 4 teams from Colonial AND 4 teams from West Penn finished above every team from the Metro NY section.
I am not ragging on these sections, because I realize balance of power fluctuates over time. I'm just saying, given the evidence, it doesn't make sense to bump a team up in the seedings just because they won a weaker section. You want a higher seed, go to better tournaments and earn it.
*Disclaimer against the teams that say "well we didn't have so-and-so all-star handler all season, so we will do better now that he's playing" or something similar: that is also meaningless for seedings.
1. UNT 2. Texas 3. OU 4. Wash U 5. Auburn 6. KU 7. Tx St 8. Tx A+M 9. Ole Miss 10. Arkansas 11. Missouri 12. Truman 13. Alabama 14. Miss St. 15. Texas Tech 16. Rice
I definitely agree that some sections are better than others, and I am willing to admit that both the Ozarks and Texas sections are better than the Bama section, but you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the team that won the section (in my opinion), especially when they have only one common opponent with some and did better against that common opponent. I think that the biggest discussion should come between who should get the 5 seed, Auburn or KU, with Texas St. being the 7.
On Apr 15, 10:57 pm, slyfingas <mart...@auburn.edu> wrote:
> I definitely agree that some sections are better than others, and I am > willing to admit that both the Ozarks and Texas sections are better > than the Bama section, but you have to give the benefit of the doubt > to the team that won the section (in my opinion), especially when they > have only one common opponent with some and did better against that > common opponent. I think that the biggest discussion should come > between who should get the 5 seed, Auburn or KU, with Texas St. being > the 7.
Seems pretty straightforward that KU is above auburn -- KU has a higher RRI and a victory over the one common opponent wisconsin- milwalkee compared to auburn's loss.
Seems pretty straightforward that tx state is above KU -- the RRIs are similar and the only difference in their records against common opponents is a tx state win over claremont compared to a KU loss to claremont.
Auburn and tx state is a little harder since they both beat the one common opponent. But Tx state's overall higher RRI (2448 to 2323) gives them an ever-so-slight edge.
On Apr 15, 10:57 pm, slyfingas <mart...@auburn.edu> wrote:
> I definitely agree that some sections are better than others, and I am > willing to admit that both the Ozarks and Texas sections are better > than the Bama section, but you have to give the benefit of the doubt > to the team that won the section (in my opinion), especially when they > have only one common opponent with some and did better against that > common opponent. I think that the biggest discussion should come > between who should get the 5 seed, Auburn or KU, with Texas St. being > the 7.
> -Steely Phil
I really don't care how these teams are seeded, but come on. How does a team that placed poorly (relatively) at regionals in '07, and played an extremely weak schedule in '08 deserve the benefit of the doubt? Outside of Ajax it seems that only bama section guys are making such an argument so it really shouldn't be an issue. Only two games are up from Terminus, and if they played somebody strong there in an unreported game people should listen, but until that time anything above an 8th seed is generous. Not bashing Auburn's program, just don't think they have earned a high seed at this year's regionals. Underseeding LSU in the past doesn't seem to justify overseeding Auburn now, but whatev.
> On Apr 15, 10:57 pm, slyfingas <mart...@auburn.edu> wrote:
> > I definitely agree that some sections are better than others, and I am > > willing to admit that both the Ozarks and Texas sections are better > > than the Bama section, but you have to give the benefit of the doubt > > to the team that won the section (in my opinion), especially when they > > have only one common opponent with some and did better against that > > common opponent. I think that the biggest discussion should come > > between who should get the 5 seed, Auburn or KU, with Texas St. being > > the 7.
> Seems pretty straightforward that KU is above auburn -- KU has a > higher RRI and a victory over the one common opponent wisconsin- > milwalkee compared to auburn's loss.
> Seems pretty straightforward that tx state is above KU -- the RRIs are > similar and the only difference in their records against common > opponents is a tx state win over claremont compared to a KU loss to > claremont.
> Auburn and tx state is a little harder since they both beat the one > common opponent. But Tx state's overall higher RRI (2448 to 2323) > gives them an ever-so-slight edge.
> Arkansas has a better record against common opponens then atm
> 7) auburn > 8) arkansas > 9) atm
Isn't RRI great? It's such a reliable statistic for juding the overall ability of a team....I mean, hey, Maryland's RRI is what? 2531? Yeah, so that means they are without a doubt a better team if the other team has an RRI of 2323. My bad, Auburn beat them 15-11. I know it's difficult to understand that a team from the state of Alabama either can't get into or can't afford to attend big tournaments out west. It's unfortunate we couldn't travel out that way and lose 80% of our games to get our RRI up. Free places to stay = tournaments we like.....Thus, tournaments nearby.
Regionals last year: We came in as the 16 seed out of 17. We brought 10 people, one of which decided taking a couple of muscle relaxers would be a good idea on Saturday. Yet we still broke seed in pool play. It seems kind of strange making an excuse for only finishing 7 spots above where you were seeded with basically 9 guys, but I guess that's what I'm doing. How do I really feel? Well, I can understand Kansas being seeded higher, but seeding Texas St. higher, based on the fact that they were one of 5 teams to beat Claremont in Vegas and their 100 pt higher Really Retarded Indicator(RRI) of team quality, is mildly upsetting.
> above an 8th seed is generous. Not bashing Auburn's program, just > don't think they have earned a high seed at this year's regionals. > Underseeding LSU in the past doesn't seem to justify overseeding > Auburn now, but whatev.
> -jdo
Seriously guys, this happens every year. Ozark and Texas always want to seed 'Bama section teams as low as possible. I believe TX even suggested seeding the 4 'Bama section teams 14-17th last year. Every year, since 2004 (all the research I was willing to do), at least one 'Bama team has made top-8 most years had 2 and a few saw the team competing in the games to go. Yes 'Bama is not the best section in the country but honestly (and as history shows) the best team in the 'Bama section is better than 10 or so of the other teams at Regionals. I'm not saying to seed the teams too high, but let's not get crazy on underseeding everyone here.
> ability of a team....I mean, hey, Maryland's RRI is what? 2531? Yeah, > so that means they are without a doubt a better team if the other team > has an RRI of 2323. My bad, Auburn beat them 15-11. I know it's > difficult to understand that a team from the state of Alabama either > can't get into or can't afford to attend big tournaments out west. > It's unfortunate we couldn't travel out that way and lose 80% of our > games to get our RRI up. Free places to stay = tournaments we > like.....Thus, tournaments nearby.
> Regionals last year: We came in as the 16 seed out of 17. We brought > 10 people, one of which decided taking a couple of muscle relaxers > would be a good idea on Saturday. Yet we still broke seed in pool > play. It seems kind of strange making an excuse for only finishing 7 > spots above where you were seeded with basically 9 guys, but I guess > that's what I'm doing. How do I really feel? Well, I can understand > Kansas being seeded higher, but seeding Texas St. higher, based on the > fact that they were one of 5 teams to beat Claremont in Vegas and > their 100 pt higher Really Retarded Indicator(RRI) of team quality, is > mildly upsetting.
RRI really is fantastic. Its the be all and end all of ways to compare teams!!!
Seriously. If you believe that then you're insane. Did you even notice the "ever so slight advantage" comment? or the fact that atm has a higher rri than auburn but auburn is seeded ahead of them? RRI is an objective measure that is better than nothing for comparing teams. And based on the schedules that Auburn and Tx state have played there is nothing to compare. No common opponents, and no common quality of opponents. Auburn beat a bunch of not so good teams while Tx state lost to a lot of not so good teams. So that leaves very less than ideal factors to consider when doing the seeding.
So far, the arguments for seeding Auburn higher have consisted of "auburn won their section" and "dont underseed auburn" and "the bama section always breaks seed"; these arguments are no better or worse than "Tx state got 3rd in the 2nd best section in the region", "dont underseed tx state", or "the two teams tx state lost to at sectionals are the likely 1 and 2 seeds". There hasn't been a single argument for seeding Auburn higher based on anything they have done at a tournament *THIS* year. Provide a compelling argument, hell any argument, based on this years results and not on a fear of underseeding.
Simple ways to improve your argument: go to terminus and make sure all your results are reported, go to CCC in the fall. If you do stay 'close to home' then blow the shit out of all of your opponents, dont lose games to a Kennesaw state team that doesnt make it out of the Georgia section or a Tennessee team that finishes 4th in the Blue Ridge section.
If you find the suggestion that they should be higher upsetting, dont. That suggestion isnt made as an evaluation of the worth of your team, but rather an evaluation of the posted results of the two teams.
> On Apr 16, 12:25 am, RayRay <disctige...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Isn't RRI great? It's such a reliable statistic for juding the > overall
> > ability of a team....I mean, hey, Maryland's RRI is what? 2531? Yeah, > > so that means they are without a doubt a better team if the other team > > has an RRI of 2323. My bad, Auburn beat them 15-11. I know it's > > difficult to understand that a team from the state of Alabama either > > can't get into or can't afford to attend big tournaments out west. > > It's unfortunate we couldn't travel out that way and lose 80% of our > > games to get our RRI up. Free places to stay = tournaments we > > like.....Thus, tournaments nearby.
> > Regionals last year: We came in as the 16 seed out of 17. We brought > > 10 people, one of which decided taking a couple of muscle relaxers > > would be a good idea on Saturday. Yet we still broke seed in pool > > play. It seems kind of strange making an excuse for only finishing 7 > > spots above where you were seeded with basically 9 guys, but I guess > > that's what I'm doing. How do I really feel? Well, I can understand > > Kansas being seeded higher, but seeding Texas St. higher, based on the > > fact that they were one of 5 teams to beat Claremont in Vegas and > > their 100 pt higher Really Retarded Indicator(RRI) of team quality, is > > mildly upsetting.
> RRI really is fantastic. Its the be all and end all of ways to > compare teams!!!
> Seriously. If you believe that then you're insane. Did you even > notice the "ever so slight advantage" comment? or the fact that atm > has a higher rri than auburn but auburn is seeded ahead of them? RRI > is an objective measure that is better than nothing for comparing > teams. And based on the schedules that Auburn and Tx state have > played there is nothing to compare. No common opponents, and no > common quality of opponents. Auburn beat a bunch of not so good teams > while Tx state lost to a lot of not so good teams. So that leaves > very less than ideal factors to consider when doing the seeding.
> So far, the arguments for seeding Auburn higher have consisted of > "auburn won their section" and "dont underseed auburn" and "the bama > section always breaks seed"; these arguments are no better or worse > than "Tx state got 3rd in the 2nd best section in the region", "dont > underseed tx state", or "the two teams tx state lost to at sectionals > are the likely 1 and 2 seeds". There hasn't been a single argument > for seeding Auburn higher based on anything they have done at a > tournament *THIS* year. Provide a compelling argument, hell any > argument, based on this years results and not on a fear of > underseeding.
> Simple ways to improve your argument: go to terminus and make sure > all your results are reported, go to CCC in the fall. If you do stay > 'close to home' then blow the shit out of all of your opponents, dont > lose games to a Kennesaw state team that doesnt make it out of the > Georgia section or a Tennessee team that finishes 4th in the Blue > Ridge section.
> If you find the suggestion that they should be higher upsetting, > dont. That suggestion isnt made as an evaluation of the worth of your > team, but rather an evaluation of the posted results of the two teams.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You'll notice nowhere in my post did I say we "blew teams out of the water." Hell, I know we had some close games with some not so good teams and yes we lost to Kennesaw on double game point once this year. We also lost to Tennessee 6-5 in a game that nobody could ever refer to as "ultimate"...20mph winds and sideways snow....As for Terminus, we only got to play 2 games as rain and tornadoes decided to crash our party. It was unfortunate because we were playing well that weekend.
Whatever the case, any team that would let Alabama take half on them isn't as good as Auburn. Ok that's more of a joke than an argument, and a bad one at that. I'm just gonna go away now and wait to see what happens with the seedings. I trust the RC. See you guys at Regionals.
While RRI might be a nice indicator, it should in no way be used to seed teams at a Series event - there are criteria listed for seeding, and RRI is not one of them.
> > above an 8th seed is generous. Not bashing Auburn's program, just > > don't think they have earned a high seed at this year's regionals. > > Underseeding LSU in the past doesn't seem to justify overseeding > > Auburn now, but whatev.
> > -jdo
> Seriously guys, this happens every year. Ozark and Texas always want > to seed 'Bama section teams as low as possible. I believe TX even > suggested seeding the 4 'Bama section teams 14-17th last year. Every > year, since 2004 (all the research I was willing to do), at least one > 'Bama team has made top-8 most years had 2 and a few saw the team > competing in the games to go. Yes 'Bama is not the best section in the > country but honestly (and as history shows) the best team in the 'Bama > section is better than 10 or so of the other teams at Regionals. I'm > not saying to seed the teams too high, but let's not get crazy on > underseeding everyone here.
what some team did in 2004 has nothing to do with now. why cant you see that is a qualitative argument??
As the Auburn captain I would just like to get a few things straight and have this be our last post on RSD:
We played at CCC, won some games, but they are not part of this discussion. Terminus was our big tournament of the year. We were turned down initially, earned our way in, beat the 12 seed, blew a game that we were winning and then it was canceled.
We went to Mardi Gras hoping to play regional competition, which honestly its a good thing that we didn't because we had basically a split squad. This is our lowest RRI tournament of the year due to some close games with lower teams and a loss to Wisconsin Milwaukee 5th game of the day, again with a split squad.
Our next two lowest RRI tournaments are one that we tied in the finals, again split squad. And had an agreeably hampering loss in this conversation to Kennessaw State. We blew this game plain and simple, up 12-9 and losing 13-12, and if that is one of the games that results in low seeding then we earned it.
If we had the money to travel to vegas and lose to higher ranked teams, or if we were put in a power pool at Mardi Gras and lost to higher ranked teams with half our team, or had Terminus continued and we lost to higher ranked teams, our RRI would probably be a little bit better, but there is nothing we can do about it anymore. I am responsible for the tournaments that we go to, and I believe that for us we went to the right tournaments and set or program up for a better schedule for next year. Based on this years results we will hopefully get into a power pool at Mardi Gras next year, we should get into Terminus without the play-in and surely tornadoes don't cancel the same tournament two years in a row.
At this point we could honestly care less about seeding. Seeding comes into play for the top 4 teams and their routes to make nationals. I think everyone knows that Auburn is more than likely not a threat to make nationals and thus should in no way be seeded in the top 4. As for seeding 5-8, obviously 5th and 6th would be the better option and I believe that is where teams are going to try to argue themselves into. Kansas will more than likely be seeded 5th because they have a high RRI, played well in multiple tournaments this spring, and program history doesn't hurt.
I believe that Auburn should be 6th or 7th with at least one of the Texas State or Texas A&M teams seeded lower. I am sorry but though I am sure it is tough to win 2 games at Vegas, doing so and not playing again until sectionals where losing to anyone other than Texas and North Texas is a major upset just doesn't jump out at me.
Let me reiterate that these are simply my arguments, even if they are as weak as the bama section. I apologize to Texas State and Texas A&M for having to be considered in the same sentence with Auburn so many times in this thread.
Seed us 8th...who cares...we have been trying to play texas and ozark teams this season at mardi gras and terminus and have not been able to. That is really all we want and at this point we get at least 2 games.
Our players have been instructed to stay off RSD Any future statements for or against our seeding should not be from Auburn players
I agree with JVo and Mike with the following results, except with one change:
1. UNT 2. Texas 3. ou 4. Wash U
5. Auburn 6. Tx St * 7. KU * 8. Tx A+M
9. Ole Miss 10. Arkansas 11. Missouri 12. Truman
13. Alabama 14. Miss St. 15. Texas Tech 16. Rice
1-4 are locks
5-8 I flipped Tx St and KU because I truly believe Tx St is a more dangerous team and I really want to see the OU/Tx St and Texas/KU Match-ups on saturday (what a great way to compare the two sections with the 2's and 3's squaring off early on!)
8-9 between A&M and Ole Miss could go either way (but does it really matter?)
10-12 seem pretty much a certainty
13-16 clearly bama is the 13. I think Miss St. jumps over Texas Tech and Rice do to the same arguement many of yall have posted whether to put down Auburn or not. Miss st HAS travelled. Granted not to huge tournaments, but for a second year team they made it to Mardi Gras, Mudbowl, and T-Town. again, most laugh when you read those names but at least it is somehting. From the score reporter Texas Tech and just showed up for sectionals and Rice made it to one other (which was trouble in vegas - mad props, but Rice lost to Texas Tech and by rule must be behind them.
This thread was just a test, and by Casey saying he doesn't care where he's seeded, he has passed. Arkansas will now be the one seed. Its kinda like the Kramer-Elaine bike thing.
> On Apr 16, 11:20 am, caseybo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > who cares who's seeded where... eventually, you'll have to beat the > > best to be the best.
> > You're more than welcome to seed our team where you see fit and we'll > > fight out way to the top or to the bottom whichever we see fit.
> > Casey boy > > LS #24
> I think what Caseyboy is trying to say is... "How do I reach deez > keeedz?
I just busted out laughing in our library computer lab... I forgot about saying that all Sunday. I love this sport, what other sport could have so much fun even when you're losing, I love our Region, I feel sorry for college players that don't ever get to play in the South Region. If you've never experience a South Regional Tournament then I suggest you come see one, and if you get the chance maybe make it by the Arkansas sideline, we'll have a cold beer for you!!
> This thread was just a test, and by Casey saying he doesn't care where > he's seeded, he has passed. Arkansas will now be the one seed. Its > kinda like the Kramer-Elaine bike thing.
On Apr 14, 10:33 pm, "Byron Hicks" <bhick...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Did Rickner get hurt in the 2/3 game with Texas? He was playing a lot > earlier on Sunday.
Rick boxed at the annual Texas State "Fite Nite" on the Thursday before sectionals. Because of that his arms were really sore and he could hardly throw on Sunday. That is why he played so few points.
On Apr 15, 9:00 pm, Bulb <kevin.patrick.mccorm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Winning your section has to be worth something. Ok so it wasn't the > > strongest section but they did go undefeated at the qualifying > > tournament. 2 teams per section ahead of you, maybe. Not 3.
> Yeah... no. You should seed by expected finish*, based on the current > season's results. Is it reasonable to think 3 teams from section X > will finish ahead of all teams from section Y? Well let's see...
Seeding is not meant to be predictive of results.
The reason you have an officially sanctioned tournament series leading up to your nationals is so that you get data to seed teams with. Invitationals are for experience but not every school has the means to get to them. The series exists so that everyone brings their full squad to the same tournament and you see who actually is best. If you ignore series results, you might as well just poll RSD for who should get invited to nationals.
> Seeding is not meant to be predictive of results.
Why not? (You don't really address this in the rest of your post.) If you seed team A above team B, you are saying, based on this season's results, team A should finish higher than team B. The exception to this is when you have to keep sectional/regional finish in order. But in this case, concerning Auburn, Kansas, and TxSt, it is not a factor. Seeding them according to their expected finish, based on this season's results, is the most fair way to seed them.
> The reason you have an officially sanctioned tournament series leading > up to your nationals is so that you get data to seed teams with.
No, the reason we have them is to identify the 16 teams that will get invited. The data used to seed them comes from the entire season. How could we seed 16 teams at a tournament only using data from tournaments where no more than 3 of them attended?
> Invitationals are for experience but not every school has the means to > get to them. The series exists so that everyone brings their full > squad to the same tournament and you see who actually is best. If you > ignore series results, you might as well just poll RSD for who should > get invited to nationals.
Auburn won the section they should get some respect even if you think the section is weak. Texas section has a history of over-hyping itself. For the two years two Texas teams have been ranked 1 & 2 and both of those years only the 1 seed Texas held their position. Let's not forget the 2006 Tx State fiasco.
|
