South regionals seedings.
dude
regionals seems to have become a little more complicated due to upsets
in both the Ozarks and Texas sections. Anyone want to give South
regionals seedings a shot? By the way, here are the standings after
sectionals which must be followed:
Texas Section:
*1 - North Texas
*2 - Texas
*3 - Texas State
*4 - Texas A&M
*5 - Texas Tech
*6 - Rice
Ozarks Section:
1 - Oklahoma
2 - Wash U
3 - Kansas
4 - Arkansas
5 - Missouri
6 - Truman State
Bama Section:
1 - Auburn
2 - Ole Miss
3 - Alabama
4 - Mississippi State
Byron Hicks
2. Texas
3. Oklahoma
4. Texas State
"dude" <consciou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ab828c27-9316-4fdc...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Gorgeous, ghughesstrange@gmail.com
> 1. UNT
> 2. Texas
> 3. Oklahoma
> 4. Texas State
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
1. UNT
2. Texas
3. Oklahoma
4. Wash. U (Wash. U. and Texas State could flop, it would not change
up bracket by much, but the one head to head had Wash. U. on top)
5. Texas State
6. Auburn
7. Kansas
moh...@mizzou.edu
1. UNT
2. Texas
3. OU
4. Wash U (head to head win vs Tx St)
5. KU
6. Tx St
7. Tx A+M
8. Auburn
9. Arkansas
10. Ole Miss
11. Missouri
12. Truman
13. Alabama
14. Tx Tech
15. Miss St
16. Rice
Actually looked at alot of stuff to get those this morning, but I
don't feel like typing it.
-MH
Jack
to be a 16-team bracket again? Just trying to visualize these
seedings and the various ways they could play out.
Daniel
Adarichev
haven't played each other this year, but TxSt's RRI is higher and I'd
say they had a better showing at the stronger Texas Sectionals than KU
in the Ozarks. I don't see any meaningful common opponents, so the
only argument for putting KU ahead is to reward them for playing more
games this year? No reason for this thread to be 120+ posts long this
year unless someone wants to make a ridiculous argument to get Adam
Tarr involved - that would be a blast. Let's talk some All-Region
instead,
-Adarichev
Wash U
Jack
I'm not so sure that the Texas section is stronger than the Ozarks.
You might say that Tx has the best team of the two (and maybe now you
have to say the best two, given the UNT victory), but the Ozarks has a
number of very strong teams that will seriously compete at regionals.
I think Oklahoma and Wash U both have the talent to take out Texas and
UNT. It seems like, as with every other tournament this year,
anything could happen, and the race for Nationals in the South Region
is wide open.
I won't get into whether or not Texas State should be seeded ahead of
Kansas, since my opinion is probably far from objective and I haven't
seen Texas State all spring, but my one question is this: Was Texas
State really 3-9 coming into sectionals? Did they only play at Mardi
Gras and Vegas?
acle...@gmail.com
The format and seedings are independent. If you're seeding depends on
the format, then you're doing it wrong.
Steven
> The format and seedings are independent. If you're seeding depends on
> the format, then you're doing it wrong.
I (and I'll bet Jack too) am mearly interested in who we'll be
playing.
cba...@gmail.com
Even when switching two teams that are very similar would avoid
sectional rematches?
Duchamanos
(in the highest estimate). Anyone from the Bama section want to make
a case for Auburn being seeded higher?
auburnu...@gmail.com
that 6th is about as high as Auburn will possibly be seeded.
That being said, I believe there is reasoning to bump Auburn up to 6
ahead of Tex State and Tex A&M since neither have had a particularly
impressive seasons. Seeding Auburn 5 ahead of Kansas would be a
stretch but could also have some argument.
I also think that Arkansas should be seeded below Ole Miss for the
following reason:
Arkansas (Ozark 4) lost to Vanderbilt (Bama 5) 6-9 at Music City
Ole Miss (Bama 2) beat Vanderbilt 14-8 at Sectionals
My revised seeding suggestion:
1. UNT
2. Texas
3. OU
4. Wash U
5. KU
6. Auburn
7. Tx St
8. Tx A+M
9. Ole Miss
10. Arkansas
Jon.B....@gmail.com
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.
I think this is better:
1 UNT
2 Texas/OU
3 Texas/OU
4 Wash U
5 Auburn
6 Kansas
7 Texas State
8 A&M
9 Ole Miss
10 Arkansas
11 Missouri
12 Truman
13 Alabama
14 Texas Tech
15 Miss St.
16 Rice
-JT
g. morello
definitely wasn't in the finals.
g53
ajax...@gmail.com
> Arkansas (Ozark 4) lost to Vanderbilt (Bama 5) 6-9 at Music City
This was over spring break in Vandy's backyard when AR did not have
several A team players. In conclusion, Ole Miss should be over
Arkansas. Meh.
ajax...@gmail.com
> that 6th is about as high as Auburn will possibly be seeded.
Props to the Auburn guy for realizing this. If LSU had won the
section they would be argueing for the one seed.
> My revised seeding suggestion:
> 1. UNT
> 2. Texas
> 3. OU
> 4. Wash U
> 5. KU
> 6. Auburn
I agree until here
7. Tx St-though if rickner is not really playin i move them down
8. Arkansas
9. aTm
10. Ole Miss
not sure after this but I think this is alright
Justin #5
disagreed with the seedings.
jacob...@gmail.com
> In all fairness to LSU, they backed it up every year when they
> disagreed with the seedings.
..until Brian Harriford graduated.
KK26
don't necesarilly think that should effect seedings in any way, but it
is an important thing to look at.
Adarichev from WashU - Supposed to be back for regionals?
Did someone say Rickner was hurt? News to me.
Bigley from KU should be fine after missing the final game at
sectionals (pussy).
Any other name players missing/ returning at sectionals? (I.E. Luke
Hanson of KU getting casted and playing with a broken wrist)
Now for my try at seedings: (Mind you I have not looked at any scores
or anything)
1. UNT
2. UT
3. OK
4. Wash U
5. KU
6. Tx-St
7. Aub
8. Tx-AM
9. Ark
10. Ole Miss
11. MU
12. Truman
13. Bama
14. Tx tech
15. Rice
16. Miss St.
Kevin
Byron Hicks
earlier on Sunday.
"KK26" <kel...@ku.edu> wrote in message
news:9fadd239-12d0-4f82...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
slyfingas
I see it, Auburn and Texas St. have one common opponent this Spring,
which is Alabama. Texas State won 15-13, but Auburn has beaten
Alabama 15-10 and 13-5.
1) UNT
2) UT
3) OK
4) Wash U
5) KU
6) AU
7) Tx. St.
.....
Justin #5
My 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
jo...@turbodog.org
> > disagreed with the seedings.
>
> ..until Brian Harriford graduated.
And basically until last year. LSU was always seeded 4th through 6th
and somehow always seemed to be fighting for the spot at nationals in
the game to go (when only 1 bid) or the backdoor game. 2 years ago
they went out early losing a close game to UNT who then lost to Kansas
for the 2nd bid. I am not saying Auburn should probably be seeded any
higher than 6th, just that LSU did back it up for the past 4-5 years
at regionals.
Part of the problem is the bama section is traditionally much smaller
than other sections and to a lesser extent either don't travel to big
tournaments or don't get in to them.
Zeke
good collection from all 3 sections here is how I'd seed it.
1. UNT
2. Texas
3. OU
4. Auburn
5. Wash U
6. Texas St.
7. Kansas
8. Arkansas
9. Ole Miss
10. Texas A&M
11. Alabama
12. Missouri
13. Truman State
14. Texas Tech
15. Miss. St.
16. Rice
The 8,9 is hard to justify seeing as stated before Arkansas got beat
by Vandy who then got beat by Auburn, Ole Miss, and Alabama. I can't
speak for Arkansas's squad at Music City but Vanderbilt's Sectionals
line was hampered by their captain suffering a broken finger game 1.
Personally, having played both I'd stick Doege and his fellows a hair
above Ole Miss.
Alabama is better than Missouri and should be seeded as such.
As has been said before, if Rickner doesn't play with Texas St. at
Regionals feel free to drop them a few spots.
The last 4 spots are really up for grabs. I've only played Miss. St.
and have no clue how well Truman St., Texas Tech, and Rice are
playing.
- Zeke
Slick
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.
-Slick...TSU Captain
Bulb
Princeton won their section and will likely be seeded 9th at ME
Regionals. Some sections are just stronger than others.
Bulb
> 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.
Michael McNeil
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
slyfingas
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
acle...@gmail.com
http://upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?div=23&page=3&team=1560&team=1212
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.
http://upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?div=23&page=3&team=1212&team=1723
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.
http://upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?div=23&page=3&team=1560&team=1723
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.
5) tx state
6) kansas
http://upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?div=23&page=3&team=1560&team=1209
aTm and auburn have the same record against the one common opponent,
and again atm's rri is ~100 points better than auburns
http://upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?div=23&page=3&team=1560&team=1227
auburn has a better record against common opponents than arkansas, so
should be ahead of them.
http://upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?div=23&page=3&team=1209&team=1227
Arkansas has a better record against common opponens then atm
7) auburn
8) arkansas
9) atm
Hotpants
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.
-jdo
RayRay
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.
Zeke
> 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.
acle...@gmail.com
> 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.
RayRay
>
> - 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.
Ryan Thompson
seed teams at a Series event - there are criteria listed for seeding,
and RRI is not one of them.
BJ
what some team did in 2004 has nothing to do with now. why cant you
see that is a qualitative argument??
auburnu...@gmail.com
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
See everyone in Baton Rouge
jones....@gmail.com
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.
casey...@gmail.com
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
Jack
I think what Caseyboy is trying to say is... "How do I reach deez
keeedz?"
moh...@mizzou.edu
he's seeded, he has passed. Arkansas will now be the one seed. Its
kinda like the Kramer-Elaine bike thing.
-MH
casey...@gmail.com
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!!
casey...@gmail.com
I win!!!!
Michael McNeil
Worst
> 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.
#44
Tx State
Jon.B....@gmail.com
> > 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.
Bulb
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.
When did I suggest to ignore series results?
jpaul...@gmail.com
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.
Give Auburn 4, 5, or 6 seed, but nothing lower.
Caleb
just played last week or have seen too much of this season. A little
Sectional diversity would be nice. If that means flip flopping a few
close seeds, I say do it.
Dennis
get the chance to prove it on the field. Being the 5 vs. 6 vs. 7 only
makes a difference, as Caleb said, if you get to play new teams from
other sections. Otherwise, there's enough parity in the sport that
the seedings don't matter too much, if at all. No matter what seeding
you get, show that you deserve it (or deserve better) and enjoy the
weekend. Good luck to all and see you next weekend.
dude
> > 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.
>
Seeding is supposed to be determined by how a team has performed so
far, or what they have earned. The same justification is given for
requiring teams who finish worse at sectionals to be seeded worse at
regionals. Those seedings are not necessarily saying "i think this
better finishing team will win, or is a better team" but instead that
one team deserves an easier road because of prior good performances.
Sc
Little to nothing.
>>> Auburn won the section they should get some respect even if you think
the section is weak.
That would be true if seeding had anything to do with respect, which
it doesn't. Getting a low seed is not a form of disrespect, it's a
logical consequence of your scores throughout the season. Those scores
may represent the true ability of your team, or they may just
represent a lack of data. This really isn't a hard concept to
understand.
>>> Texas section has a history of over-hyping
itself.
That would be true if the Texas section was hyping itself, instead of
just having better or more complete regular season results.
>>> 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.
I can tell you don't play for a good team, because good teams are
happy when they know the teams seeded ahead of them are weak. They
aren't concerned with rankings, they are concerned with getting the
set of match-ups most favorable for them to win.
>>> Give Auburn 4, 5, or 6 seed, but nothing lower.
No.
Bulb
I don't know if you're agreeing with me or not...?
I'm suggesting you seed teams by expected finish, based on this
season's results. You are saying to seed teams based on how a team
has performed so far. So, without mincing words, we agree.
The sectional/regional seeding rule is just a specific form of this
idea. You could take the rule away, but weigh the games by some extra
factor, and get the same result, or close to it. Example: Stanford is
2-2 vs. UCSC but has (slightly) higher RRI. If you counted their
Sectionals matchup twice, I'd bet UCSC has the higher RRI. I realize
RRI is not the best judge of performance, but it is still useful.
jones....@gmail.com
hence my rankings....
EricW...@gmail.com
EricW...@gmail.com
moh...@mizzou.edu
Seedings TBD
Context clues
-MH
jpaul...@gmail.com
Wow a 6 seed. Who'd have guessed?
I can tell your not very persuasive with your arguments, because then
Auburn might have been lower.
And for the record I love pwning overhyped Texas region teams.
Hotpants
>
> - Show quoted text -
Haha, and how many times did you do that, once?
Sc
>
> I can tell your not very persuasive with your arguments, because then
> Auburn might have been lower.
I never argued for Auburn to be lower. They are where they should be.
I just pointed out that your arguments for them to be higher were
fucking dumb.
> And for the record I love pwning overhyped Texas region teams.
Well, too bad you didn't get the 7 seed, otherwise you could have
pwned Texas in the quarters. As it is, you'll have to beat Oklahoma
before you get the opportunity to pwn Texas. Best of luck with that.
mar...@yahoo.com
I'm pretty sure that this isn't an Auburn player saying this. Sorry
if it seems that way.
Michael McNeil
Yeah, that definitely is NOT an Auburn player.
bail...@bama.ua.edu
look at the ac regionals. there is a pool with 3 blue ridge teams and
a pool with 4 ga/sc teams.
tatc...@hotmail.com
-"No, I also have a son named Bort"
Dan
dude
> Mizzou over Auburn 15-13.
oh snap. Auburn sure put that 6 seed to good use
MC
You keep speaking of overhyped Texas teams. But once again, the Texas
Section has proven that is the section to beat at Regionals. This
makes TUFF the winner of 6 of the past 7 South regionals. I know you
aren't probably referring to TUFF, but you can't say that the Texas
Section has not represented in past regionals. My guess is you got
lucky one year and beat a young texas state or UNT team and that has
been the highlight of your career. At least you got that going for
you.
Good job UNT and TUFF for showcasing the talent and depth from Texas.
Zeke
Yay, you guys won. Way to be an ass and rub it in everyone's faces.
Stay classy Texas.
MC
Yea, I magically got back to Austin in 2.5 hours just to post that. I
think everyone here knows the only person willing to post something
like this would be an old washed up alum. Just giving my historical
perspective on those "overhyped" Texas schools.
Hotpants
Due to all the talk prior to regionals, is it now ok to refer to last
weekend as the 2008 bama section fiasco? Sorry if this is bad timing,
but if your going to talk trash about people then back it up.
GenericEmai...@gmail.com
> > 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.
And that sweet, sweet top-8 finish streak finally comes to an end
dude
Okay well whatever happens every year (bama getting under seeded)
didn't happen this year, according to some pure statistical analysis.
We all know where the bama teams were seeded coming into to the
tournament. Bama section finished the tournament 10th, 11th, 12th and
13th. Now, let the newly made history show that the best team in the
bama section is not better than at least 10 teams at sectionals, but
instead only better than 3 teams at sectionals, not counting the other
bama teams.
Also, most underseeded or under hyped team was arkansas. They tore
stuff up. Tx state also overachieved what their seeding would have
predicted.
mar...@yahoo.com
everyone that it was not Auburn's talent and skill that cost them at
Regionals, it was instead their attitude and a lack of urgency.
Everyone was apparently right this year about the Bama section, and it
sucks. The two years previous I had been at Auburn, we had broken
seed at Regionals. Additionally, last year the top seed LSU broke
seed and finished third, so naturally people were pushing for a higher
seed for Auburn. Congrats to UNT and TUFF, and thanks to Missouri for
a good spirited game.
auburnu...@gmail.com
seeded correctly but simply choked. We brought it upon ourselves. I
regretted the seeding arguments even when they were going on, but in
all honesty we just wanted a shot at an ozark team rather than playing
sectionals finals in the first round. As the saying goes we got we
asked for. Congrats to Mizzou on a great game, they adjusted at half
and we failed to readjust and played the worst ultimate we have played
all year. Congrats to Kansas for not being affected by the rain and
putting that game out of reach within 10 minutes. This weekend was
very embarrassing for me personally and it is something that I will
live with for a long time, but don't automatically discount next
year's bama sectional champion from a 6-8 seed, which will again be
the highest they probably should be seeded unless someone does some
crazy recruiting and improving. I would like to reiterate the fact
that Auburn did not discredit or suggest the overhyping of other
sections, we merely argued for a seeding that we felt we deserved
based on our length of schedule and its success rather than a short
strong schedule. I know that Texas State was the brunt of most
arguments and we have nothing but respect for their program. I knew
they were a strong team, but I was just upset that they did not play
in more tournaments. They proved they were a force this weekend and I
just hope that the road they took due to the reseeding fiasco did not
effect their outcome.
Auburn was new to this situation of believing we could actually
compete (our goal coming into the season was top 5 at regionals), we
did what we thought was necessary are fought for what we felt we
deserved, I did not have us well prepared over the three weeks leading
to sectionals, our last competitive game before regionals was a loss
to Colorado State at Terminus, and we choked. I don't think you have
to worry about Auburn arguing over seeding next year, even if they do
win the section again and are seeded 10th. Continue to post at our
expense if you want, whats done is done and we earned it.
And for the record Zeke is from Vandy not Auburn just in case people
were associating him with us.
moh...@mizzou.edu
Totally agree! Auburn was much much much more talented and skilled
than Missouri. World's ahead. Just that stupid attitude. Thanks for
the apology.
-MH
casey...@gmail.com
sure you have a great program and will be back again next year, it
takes a big person to admit to not living up to your potential (trust
me I know what it's like to feel like you let your team down at
Regionals) good luck in the future and I hope you don't let this
little bump in the road discourage your program from ballin out next
year.
for everyone that was at Regionals this year, it was a hell of a lot
of fun even though we were in the asshole of the U.S., Baton Rouge
(haha, sorry LSU, it's just a joke) It was just more proof why I love
this Region so much and will continue to love playing in it for as
long as I'm allowed to play.
Good Luck, Texas and North Texas, I'm sure you'll do the South proud
at Nationals!!
Casey boy
auburnu...@gmail.com
Auburn. Faster, taller, and wanted it more. Mike personally played
great that game, we were warned about his hucks and they still beat
us, once again my fault as a captain. What I believe the other post
was trying to say is that our attitude and lack of urgency was
terrible, not that Missouri did not beat us fairly and by their
means. Also that although we did not show it, there was talent and
skill there somewhere, but again we did not showcase it and give you
our best effort. I am not saying that you would not have beaten our
best effort, just that we would feel better about the result. After
the game I thought back over it and believe that we threw it straight
to your poaches which you switched to intelligently at least 5 times.
You can't win a game, or don't deserve to anyway, when you do that.
Great game Missouri and great tournament Mike, everything ran
smoothly. Sorry if you took what was said the wrong way.
mar...@yahoo.com
> than Missouri. World's ahead. Just that stupid attitude. Thanks for
> the apology.
>
> -MH
I did not say anything to put down Missouri. Sorry if it seemed that
way. I love competitive games, and Missouri is certainly very
talented and well spirited.
-Phil