NW Mixed Regionals
Bill1979
BigSky1 Mental Toss Flycoons
NorCal1 Mischief
NorCal2 CTR
WABC1 D'oh!
WABC2 Emerald City Remixed
Ore1 Dogfight
NorCal3 A.I.R.
BigSky2 Golden Spike
NorCal4 Night Train
WABC3 Untouchable Stepmother Association
BigSky3 Psychoplastique
Ore2 Portland Keggers
Ore3 Breakers Mark
NorCal5 BAG
Ore4 Bid*Well Nuts
NorCal6 F.O.G.
Bill1979
BigSky2 Golden Spike
BigSky3 Psychoplastique
NorCal1 Mischief
NorCal2 CTR
NorCal3 A.I.R.
NorCal4 Night Train
NorCal5 BAG
NorCal6 F.O.G.
Ore1 Dogfight
Ore2 Portland Keggers
Ore3 Breakers Mark
Ore4 Bid*Well Nuts
WABC1 D'oh!
WABC2 Emerald City Remixed
WABC3 Untouchable Stepmother Association
pgw
According to the results page, BAG forfeited the 4-5 game against
Night Train at NorCal sectionals. If this is accurate, then they
would be DQ'ed. (If on the other hand the teams mutually agreed not
to play, then this would qualify as an "allowable forfeit" under "Case
1" in the formats manual.)
Also I think D'Oh deserves the 3 seed. CTR has a few more impressive
wins, but they have worse losses, were upset by AIR in sectional
semis, and D'Oh has a higher RRI.
Other than that your top 9 seems reasonable to me, don't really know
anything about the others.
doyle
> On Sep 21, 8:30 am, Bill1979 <bill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Any guess on seeds?
>
> > BigSky1 Mental Toss Flycoons
> > NorCal1 Mischief
> > NorCal2 CTR
> > WABC1 D'oh!
> > WABC2 Emerald City Remixed
> > Ore1 Dogfight
> > NorCal3 A.I.R.
> > BigSky2 Golden Spike
> > NorCal4 Night Train
> > WABC3 Untouchable Stepmother Association
> > BigSky3 Psychoplastique
> > Ore2 Portland Keggers
> > Ore3 Breakers Mark
> > NorCal5 BAG
> > Ore4 Bid*Well Nuts
> > NorCal6 F.O.G.
>
> According to the results page, BAG forfeited the 4-5 game against
> Night Train at NorCal sectionals. If this is accurate, then they
> would be DQ'ed. (If on the other hand the teams mutually agreed not
> to play, then this would qualify as an "allowable forfeit" under "Case
> 1" in the formats manual.)
It was a mutual forfeit under the allowable forfeits clause.
> Also I think D'Oh deserves the 3 seed. CTR has a few more impressive
> wins, but they have worse losses, were upset by AIR in sectional
> semis, and D'Oh has a higher RRI.
I could see it going either way but D'Oh does have a Nationals
appearance last year going for them.
> Other than that your top 9 seems reasonable to me, don't really know
> anything about the others.
agreed
Chris Doyle
Mischief #3
Nor Cal XSC
bil
1. Flycoons (BS 1)
2. Mischief (NC 1)
3. D'oh (Wa 1)
4. CTR (NC 2)
5. Remix (Wa 2)
6. A.I.R. (NC 3)
7. USA - Carleton West Coast (Wa 3)
8. Golden Spike (BS 2)
9. Pschoplastique (BS 3
10. Dogfight (Or 1)
11. Night Train (NC 4)
12. Keggers (Or 2)
13. Breakers (Or 3)
14. BAG (NC 5)
15. FOG (NC 6)
16. Bidwell (Or 4)
I know you want to put an OR team up there, in the quarters group, but
last year's Oregon 1 (USA) moved to the WA section. Dogfight is
similar to the OR 2 last year.
I'm using last year because historical is often predicative & there
are hardly any results below Remix (although AIR over Golden is kept).
USA is the Carleton team, which won the OR section last year,
finishing 7th above Spike at regionals but below the NC 3.
Golden Spike finished, what, 8th or 9th last year in the region?
There is no indication from their record this year that anything has
changed.
Psycho traveled this year, beating a nationals qualifier from last
year, so maybe they deserve the bump up, but must be below Golden.
Dogfight has not beaten a nationals qualifier, and has no results
indicating any change in seeding from their finish last year (travel
more, Dogfight - not making finals in your home tournament and not
being in either ECC or Labour Day doesn't help you...). If Psycho &
Golden ended up in the same pool (assuming pool play), sure, push
Psycho down.
Of course, I have in the past substituted the placement of the
previous year's region for my version of the nationals seedings - so
Dogfight (OR 1) could make that argument for taking USA(Hunzicker
Proxy)'s place, but it isn't often that a team will go from one
section to the next.
Joe Buck
They seem to rarely disappoint.
Other than that, I agree with about everything.
On Sep 21, 5:45 pm, bil <ultimatephotogra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> but it isn't often that a team will go from one
> section to the next.
Unless it's the Traveling Carleton Sideshow.
How many retired WA players are placeholders on your team this year?
Next year you guys should register in Alaska, then you don't even have
to play sectionals.
PartyD
You play on USA, yes? Or at least you did last year?
Should I find it interesting that you have USA ranked 7th, while by
RRI they are 15th?
I don't think that they should be ranked 15th, but 7th seems like a
reach --particularly in light of the magnitude of their losses at
sectionals. I don't like making claims about the relative strength of
teams based on scale of losses, but since D'oh! and Remix are the only
teams in the WA/BC section that have any reported results other than
Sectionals, I don't see that we have much choice.
It also appears that the OR3 (Keggers) is out, and the OR5
(P.Supernova) is in.
D
Gabriel Pedersen
heard he's alright.
Gabe
D'oh! #20
bil
> teams based on scale of losses,
Using scale of loss too much, especially where
the goal & set of teams at sectionals compared
to regionals is vastly different, is dangerous.
For example, the finals of sectionals can see
a lot of upsets where the field as a whole is
weak, and the only real game for what should
be the top seed is the final game. From what
I've seen over the years, using the point differential
from that final game to seed screws everyone.
For example, Golden Spike lost at sectionals
to Flycoons on Saturday Morning in their only (?)
meeting, 11-8. Does that mean that Golden
Spike should be seeded higher than Mischief
(lost to Flycoons by 4) & CTR (lost to Flycoons
by 4)?
Or another example: the D'oh-Shazam games
as finals of sectionals have always been close.
WA/BC is a two team section, more or less,
but that doesn't mean that D'oh Shazam have
always been playing at the same level.
Which is not to say that my seeding is a
perfect predictor of results. I do not think
this is the case.
Take a look at the 3 teams advance snake
(again, not sure how many bids we have),
which really is messed up after the 8 seed.
BTW: Why the 9 team 3 advance format has
the 1 & 2 seeds in a pool playing in the first
round on Saturday is beyond me.
Bill1979
hurricane or something? With scores like that I don't think you have
any business in the top 10.
ache...@hotmail.com
ouch) CTR also beat Flycoons at ECC, the only team to do so, i think.
bil
i hope i don't double post.
WA/BC had three bids going into sectionals. three bids does not
require a close game against the top two teams, who are going to beat
us _most_ of the time. you might be the kind of fellow who takes
special pride in losing by fewer points rather than more points, but I
am not. i just want to guarantee going to regionals.
if your original seedings were used, i would be perfectly fine with
the teams that we would have to play. the teams that might not agree
with you are the 2nd seeds, who get stuck having a too strong 3rd seed
in their pool.
remember, in your seeding, the 15th place finisher last year is 6th
this year. And you're moving us down to 11th from 7th based purely
upon this fascination that you have with sectional results.
in looking at last year's finish, i guess i'd rejigger and move night
train up closer to air, dropping dogfight out of the "top ten."
not that it really matters anyway - the top 5 are pretty set, although
i could see spike upsetting remix, maybe, esp. since it is their
backyard, and earlier in the tourney. spike is such a weird team -
they can upset but can't be consistent.
doyle
OR2 seed because you're counting them as what would be the second best
team if USA had stayed in OR.
bil
Dogfight is captained by the same person,
and has some of the same personnel,
but has also added some other people
(no names, although we lost one of
our women to them, and we liked her,
(we like all of our players, who are
especially skilled at being minature
tanks).
They would argue that they are better
this year and I wouldn't necessarily
disagree with them, but they didn't really
do much to show that they are playing
at a significantly better level. It would
have been nice to have seen them go to
labour day, or some other mixed tournament.
Going to Spawnfest was not helpful when
all the competitive teams were in ECC. I
would suggest that Spawnfest was a mistake.
Psychoplastique is an example of a team
that went out there and proved something
by going to a serious tournament and by
beating a couple natties qualifiers from
last year. So my estimation of Psycho
rises, but not of Dogfight.
They are not a CTR in the sense that the
people that they did add may have made
them better (read consistent), but not more
natties experienced. They are not at the
whoreshack level certainly, and have no
whoreshack people that I can think of
(other than Courtney). Which should tell
you something.
If they made it to quarters, that would
be a successful year for them. But
w/ 5 spots in quarters locked up,
and Spike, Psycho, USA &
AIR/Night Train fighting for those
spots, I'd really be surprised.
What Courtney really needs is
for the Rhino guys to actually play
Rhino again instead of some
last minute throw together team.
That way there'd be more trickle
down, instead of trickle up to Rhino.
And for a 2nd women's team to
exist in Portland again for a few
years, falling apart just in time
for Dogfight to pick up some of
the by now experienced players.
Of course, my saying this will
only make them hate me.
According to a prediction I
made last year, they are
supposed to get to quarters
this year, finishing where we
finished last year. So focus on
my last year's prediction,
Dogfight, and not this post.
Thank you.
Johnny O
Dogfight came over to Boise Scorcher and although we were not playing
that tourney as the Flycoons, a Montana team with a fair number of
Flycoons had to fend off a fierce comeback bid (after being up
something like 8-2 at half) by Dogfight in the finals before winning
17-13-ish.
In the for what it is worth column I feel bad for Boise who was the
loser in the final regional bids to sections decision. Although we
only had 9 teams in the section, I think Boise would have done fairly
well at regionals and might have even surprised a few teams. They
played really well this year whenever I saw/heard about them, even
knocking off Flycoons-esque teams at Bozofest and Jackson BBQ
And I know John Ladd will do his best with seeding but I don't see any
reason why all three big Sky qualifiers would end up in the same pool
at regionals.
As always, it should be a tough tourney full of very good teams.
Johnny O
MTF #15
ctgdale
Dogfight is a better team than Triceratops was, but a 9-10 seed seems
fair to me. We've added a lot of new players to the T-tops core,
including some Natties experience, some UK championship experience,
some Rhino experience, and some Carleton experience. Quick fact
check: Ted McClure played for the $hack as well.
Bil is right that we haven't proven ourselves this year, but not for
lack of trying. You can blame that jerk Ben Wiggins for not letting
us into the Elite division of ECC.
The annoying question here is: How do you seed teams with non-
representative preseason results? Bil argues, without stating his
conflicts of interest I might add, that you can judge a team based on
previous year's performances. Certainly this is the case with teams
like Furious, who in the past has lost seemingly easy games over the
course of a season before taking home the trophy. But a team like
USA, that only plays the series and doesn't try against the only
nationals-caliber teams they see at sectionals, might not be deserving
of such trust.
Dogfight has better results against common opponents. I agree that
seeding by scale of loss is a dubious proposition, but it's more
reliable than historical performance of teams that fluctuate greatly
between seasons (especially "pick-up" teams). If you want a better
seed, play more games and try harder in the games you are given. If
you play just to barely make Regionals, don't expect a high seed.
Seedings are not meant to be predictive, they represent the relative
strength of teams based on the results at hand. I'll grant that USA
gets some credit for their performance last year, but not a 7 seed.
I'm happy with Bil's seedings if you drop USA down to 10, at the top
of the pile where there are no common opponents.
Courtney
Dogfight #00
Melanie
Please feel free to make comments on teams that we haven't played, or
anything else for that matter.
MTF
Mischief
D'Oh
CTR
ECR
AIR
GS
NT
Dogfight
USA
Psycho
BAG
BM
Bidwell
FOG
Pleisto
that would make pools:
MTF (BS) Mischief (NC) D'Oh (W/BC) CTR (NC)
NT (NC) GS (BS) AIR (NC) ECR (W/BC)
Dogfight (O) USA (W/BC) Psycho (BS) BAG (NC)
Pleisto (O) FOG (NC) Bidwell (O) BM (O)
Any comments, suggestions, additions, changes?
Melanie, NT #17
pgw
> Any comments, suggestions, additions, changes?
Comments:
It's not clear whether there will be pools or straight brackets. But
if it's pools, the formats manual says they will be:
A: 1, 8, 11, 14
B: 2, 7, 12, 13
C: 3, 6, 9, 16
D: 4, 5, 10, 15
So your seedings would yield these pools:
A: MTF, NT, Psycho, Bidwell
B: Mischief, GS, BAG, BM
C: D'Oh, AIR, Dogfight, Pleisto
D: CTR, ECR (?), USA, FOG
Melanie
bil
> if it's pools, the formats manual says they will be:
uh. do we know whether we are 4 teams or
3 teams advance? from what i remember,
you've given us the 3 team advance snake,
not the 4 team one.
not that we even have a venue.
bil
> strength of teams based on the results at hand.
I am not attempting to predict results. My opinion of
where we will finish vs. where we should be seeded
is not the same.
One of the explicitly stated factors is prior year's finish.
Looking at the results from last year, the OR
section, minus Proxy (USA this year), finished
14, 15, and 16. Let me repeat that.
OR teams took the bottom three spots at
NW regionals, finishing below the NorCal 5,
the WA/BC 3, and the BigSky 3.
And yet, our first seeding had them as
high as 6th, and our last pass has them
at 9th.
This year's results don't give us much information
that tells us they will do better.
There are statements about improvement in
personnel, which is an allowed factor, and I'm
willing to cede a couple spots because of that.
But Psycho still has good reason to be seeded above
Dogfight, given what is admittedly an early season
result, but one far from Psycho's shores. And
also, historically, having finished significantly better
than Triceratops last year. NightTrain also has reason
to be seeded higher.
Bringing USA back in, what you are arguing is that
_absence_ of results (NOT a factor) in the interim is
enough to drop USA several spots, and personnel
changes are enough to raise Dogfight several spots.
That isn't convincing to me.
DanO
>
> uh. do we know whether we are 4 teams or
> 3 teams advance? from what i remember,
> you've given us the 3 team advance snake,
> not the 4 team one.
>
seems unlikely that the NW would get the growth WC, but this is all
rumor and innuendo.
> not that we even have a venue.
http://www.ultimateslc.org/regionals
Did something happen in SLC that I don't know about?
DanO
ctgdale
of your seedings, except for the USA seeding. Psyco should be ahead
of us. I would not be upset if NT were seeded above us as well even
though a Dogfightish team beat a Night Trainish team at Ashland many
months ago. There are possibly more relevant results that would put
them ahead of us.
I'm also not trying to say that we should seed based on strength of
roster. I included that as information, since others in this thread
had asked about us. Teams do change from year to year, however.
Dogfight is not the same as T-tops, and I'm sure that Proxy is not the
same as USA.
You said: "This year's results don't give us much information that
tells us they will do better."
The thing is, we do have results that give us information. It's not
the most accurate information possible, but it should be used, with
caution, to inform our decision making.
Both USA and Dogfight have played against Moon Possum, D'oh, and
Remix. Dogfight consistently performed better than USA. The results
of these games should not be tossed out the window because USA didn't
try hard.
I don't deny that last year's results should be used to advise the
seeds. As much as I try to repress the memories of Chokefest 2008,
it's still relevant. We have two pieces of very imperfect information
to use in seeding: ancient results between similar teams, and scores
against mutual opponents when some of the games didn't matter. Sorry
but you can't use one exclusively.
Courtney
Dogfight #00
bil
> Did something happen in SLC that I don't know about?
things are up in the air (sic, see below), supposedly.
which doesn't mean that I know what happened in SLC.
i wouldn't put it past the spikers (those damn pikers
(referencing Pike County, Missouri, not european
wanderers)) to try to get the most out of their elevation
by increasing it by a couple/few thousand.
har har on the rest of us sea dwellers.
Tom Moyer
(a polo ground). The information on the website is current.
- Tom
Rodney Jacobson
http://www.upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?div=68&page=3&tourn=6099
Dogfight is high, but seems to compare favorably to AIR, in particular
at Kleinman Eruption: http://www1.upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?div=68&page=3&team=9959&team=7951
And seems about equal with CTR and Golden Spike, with similar scores
against common opponents.
With a game against YCC Storm Troop in round 2 followed by a bye in
round 3, it's surprising that USA decided to not try against ECR in
the first round of sectionals: http://www1.upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=68&id=6251
To me, arguments along the lines of "we didn't try against the teams
that beat us" suggest more that a team should be dropped in seedings
rather than moved up. Their performance in the games where they
choose to try must be better than it would have been if they'd tried
in all their games.
If we seeded based mainly on current year results, perhaps we'd have
more games with full effort during the season. And once we have full
effort in games, seeding becomes that much easier.
Mark Kilmer
Dogfight beat them there only running one play. And that was before
Dogfight stole their 6'1 Blondie.
Mark Kilmer
Dogfight also defeated Night Train this season at Cramp-up, with that
same play single play that took out Carlton Alumni at Onionfest and a
lighter roster than what they currently hold. Now we have like two
plays so we're twice as good. (Dog fight also has had a problem
naming itself this year waffling between such names as JailBlazers and
Pandemic but the roster has been largely the same all season).
Kilmer
jacob
it's carlten. thanks.
bjj
team usa
miles
i used to play in the NW mixed region, and I feel that every year
there is a huge pre-regionals discusion about seeding. Whether it's
pool play or bracket set up, it still comes down to the the the teams
that started the with solid talent and grew all year in tested games
that go Floriadia each year. Why argue about 8th throuh 10th? Only 3
or 4 goes to Natties, and as a mildly interestet party, it looks like
MTF, D'ho, and either Mishief or Seattle mixed in the mix. Why so
much talk about the mid leavle squads? Esecialy when regionals are in
SLC and many mid leavle teams don't wan't to make the trip, alowing
poor teams to attend regionals.
too much thought given in NW mixed seeding.
mk
PartyD
I suspect there are a couple of other teams that believe they have a
shot. At the very least, CTR with a victory over MTF seems like they
might have a fighting chance. It is too bad that it sounds like there
are 3 bids this year (?) since the field looks a more wide open than
it has in the past few years. With 4 bids, the NW would have a good
shot at sending some new faces to Florida.
I gather from the tone of your response that you think that everyone
who doesn't have a shot at Florida should give up and not go? I think
you'd find that most of the teams in the 8-16 range don't believe that
they have a shot of going to nationals, but that doesn't mean that
they don't have other goals for their seasons. Whether or not you
agree that goals other than making it to nationals are valuable is a
different issue. There is only one team that I see from the
sectionals results that earned a bid and chose to decline it, so there
must be something that is bringing the 'other' teams to Utah. You
could argue that they are coming to screw around and drink 3.2% beer,
but I've never faced a team at regionals that hasn't been playing to
win in pool play and 3.2% beer isn't as awesome as it sounds.
I'd agree that the difference between 8th-10th probably isn't going
to be a huge one in terms of the outcome this year, but recognize that
the difference between something like a 7 and a 11 seed is big. I've
gone to regionals and been seeded in three of the four tiers
(5-8,9-12,13-16) and I can tell you that it does make a huge
difference as to how Saturday goes.
The only reason that I think there is much of a discussion of the
seeding is because Bil tried to make a case for USA to be ranked
higher than their results seem to justify. With the exception of USA,
I think the seeding is going to be pretty straight forward, and I
don't think there is really anyone here that is putting forward
unreasonable seeding suggestions. When Bil's suggestion to seed USA
7th met with some resistance, he changed the discussion into his
thoughts on Dogfight. If you look at the actual seeding discussion
however, except on the topic of USA, everyone seems to pretty much be
in agreement.
D
bil
> Here's the SRT grid:http://www.upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?div=68&page=3&tourn=6099
Oh Rodney, if only RRI were one of the factors to be used for seeding,
and if only these mid-level teams made more effort to play each other.
At least there are better results from the competitive teams these
days (compared to 3 years ago).
But otherwise, I agree that my argument earlier was a weak one.
I agree w/ Rodney about most of what he said, although his middle
paragraph is a little confusing.
Kilmer wrote:
> Dogfight also defeated Night Train this season at Cramp-up, with that
I didn't see that on score reporter, so that's info that's good to
have.
Miles:
> Why argue about 8th throuh 10th?
because that's all 6 through 11 have, really.
i agree with you completely about the
chances of the other teams. If there were 4
teams advancing, someone like spike might
have a shot w/ one of the top teams mis-stepping
on Sunday morning, but if we only have 3 bids,
everyone but the top 5 is out of contention.
CTR has a better claim than Remix, I'd suggest,
but we'll see how it plays out.
PartyD:
> When Bil's suggestion to seed USA
> 7th met with some resistance, he changed the
> discussion into his thoughts on Dogfight.
haha. you've got me there, sort of. with
all of the people writing in support of
dogfight on this thread, with an extra result
we didn't previously know about, and with
better arguments in support of them, there's
more facts supporting them at at something
better than 15th, and <shrug> maybe
better than USA, but remember we started
this with them 6th or 7th, and now they
are closer to the 10 spot, which is more
appropriate.
i am not saying that we are the same
as the midwest carleton mixed team,
but there were several years in a row
where that team _barely_ made it out
of sectionals, but then took a natties
bid. i'm sure that every single year,
the rest of the central region was like,
oh, their record is horrible, seed them at
8 or 13, and every year they finished 2nd or
3rd. again, i'm not saying that we're
the same as that team. but, as in the
SW mixed thread, i suspect others
of failing to give history its due.
Mark Kilmer
> On Sep 22, 12:34 pm, Bill1979 <bill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> WA/BC had three bids going into sectionals. three bids does not
> require a close game against the top two teams, who are going to beat
> us _most_ of the time. you might be the kind of fellow who takes
> special pride in losing by fewer points rather than more points, but I
> am not. i just want to guarantee going to regionals.
Dogfight wasn't really trying at Kleinman when they lost to Do'h by 2
an Remix by 4. We just wanted to practice making to the 3-4 game for
regionals. Also we weren't really trying when we lost to Missoula in
Boise. Same goal.
Kilmer DF #2