11 teams?
huckbucket
4 bids to regionals, the northwest region only had 11 teams?
is that a joke?
only 5 out of 10 regions had 16 teams, that is
unacceptable.
3 of those 5 were the regions with only one bid.
If a region can only field 11 teams for its REGIONAL
CHAMPIONSHIP tournament, and has 4 bids, something is wrong.
seriously
~~huck
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
rsdaccount
You think bids should be allocated by the number of teams
that attend regionals?
the overwhelming amount of criticism in changing the USAU
college series was to all more competitive teams into the
championship.
David Stoddard
isn't great, but that region deserved 4 bids to nationals
based on regular season play.
Hack
bids. make the finals...you are in (i think). in the semis
to the game to go, whitman forfeits against ubc. ubc plays
western washington in the game to go after western
washington gets half taken on them 8-6 v. victoria. ubc
wins.
i dont know. just does not seem like a fair format to me.
i wouldnt see it as a problem except for the fact that the
likelihood of a team forfeting in SUCH an IMPORANTANT game
inreases substantially with only seven teams. hmmmm.....
rsdaccount
to have more teams playing. But the truth is that those
schools are all very talented and they live in a sparsely
populated segment of the country.
Actually, I have more of a problem with very densely
populated areas getting a single bid, just because there are
a lot of people that live there. The Metro East, for
example, is sending their top ranked (#42) Cornell back to
the championship, while teams like Minnesota, San Diego
State and Michigan aren't going.
Isn't that wrong?
Zack Smith
been putting out there about Cornell and the Metro East. I
personally think that it is fair that we had the opportunity
to compete, but I was going to make the same point about a
region having 16 teams but only 1 bid.
However, in terms of the argument as to whether we deserved
a bid, the USAU is not the only organization with this
system. For instance, in NCAA men's basketball, the winner
of the MAC tournament gets a bid to March Madness, and
typically doesn't make a lot of noise.
moremail...@yahoo.com
> Actually, I have more of a problem with very densely
> populated areas getting a single bid, just because there are
> a lot of people that live there. The Metro East, for
> example, is sending their top ranked (#42) Cornell back to
> the championship, while teams like Minnesota, San Diego
> State and Michigan aren't going.
>
> Isn't that wrong?
There are alot of sports that factor regional representation into
their playoff systems, resulting in stronger teams being unable to
advance through the playoffs - or even qualify for the post season -
while relatively weaker teams from other divisions move ahead. Among
them are baseball, football, basketball, hockey.
You could propose to the USAU that if Ultimate really wants to
distinguish itself we could do away with regional representation in
our championship series format. But it seems unlikely that too many
ultimate players will jump on that bandwagon.
rsdaccount
East gets a bid. I'm just pointing out that based on what
I've heard and read about what people want, they want the
best teams to go.
Personally, I think it's fine that there's a guaranteed
regional representation at the national championship.
moremail...@yahoo.com
> Personally, I think it's fine that there's a guaranteed
> regional representation at the national championship.
rsdaccount also wrote:
> Actually, I have more of a problem with very densely
> populated areas getting a single bid, just because there are
> a lot of people that live there.......
> Isn't that wrong?
So I am confused. Do you think it is fine or do you think it is
wrong?
Reggie Fanelli
>
> You think bids should be allocated by the number of teams
> that attend regionals?
---i seriously agree that a regional event featuring 11 teams should
NOT be permitted to send 4 teams to the championships.
IF a region can send 4 teams to the championships, then they should
HAVE to have a full 16 at regionals.
for each team they are lacking.....they should lose a bid.
4 going and 7 not going from a regional tournament?
come on.......
someone work out an algarithm
footblock
of teams at regionals is no longer automatically 16. A
regional can be as small as 8 teams. The size of the
regionals depends on the number of teams in the region (that
meet team regisration deadline).
http://www.usaultimate.org/competition/college_division/college_season/guidelines.aspx#regionals
Thus, the northwest likely only had 11 teams because the max
it could have at regionals was 12. NW womens regionals
probably only had a max of 8. With smaller regions, its
unsurprising that the depth and number of teams would be
lower. But, I agree that 4 bids for an 11 team regionals
seems ridiculous. I'm just trying to explain why it was 11
teams.
IMO, they should just cap the max # of bids to natties for a
region at 3 teams. I also think the ranking system gives too
much advantage to regions with a few good teams, who play
each other a bunch and thereby disproportionately increase
their ranking (see NW and NC).
At southeast womens regionals we were told that usau would
impose penalties for the next season on teams who forfeit
any regionals games (including consolation games). I don't
know if this is true, or what those penalties would be, but
it seems like a good way to prevent what happened in the NW.
Reggie Fanelli
> of teams at regionals is no longer automatically 16. A
> regional can be as small as 8 teams. The size of the
> regionals depends on the number of teams in the region (that
> meet team regisration deadline).
--sorry if this is a re-post.....
are you saying that the sections and size of the region can determine
that a 16 team regional ISN'T an option?
the MAX number of teams at regionals CAN be less than 16?
hubba wha?
whoa......the hits keep coming....
BJones
Reggie Fanelli
--the number of rostered teams in the region CAN determine that the
region have a MAX number of teams less than 16 for regionals.....?
wow.
to promote the growth of the sport and over-all great college ultimate
experience for the kids....i wouldn't limit the number of teams at
regionals to UNDER 16.
mgd.mitch
> IMO, they should just cap the max # of bids to natties
> for a region at 3 teams.
restructuring last fall, they had the number of bids to
nationals capped per region, (something like 3 or 4). They
received a LOT of feedback that bids shouldn't be capped. I
believe something like 5 of the top 10 finishers at women'd
D1 nationals last year were from 1 region.
I have no problem with 4 bids from a small region as long as
the algorithm is as least reasonably ranking the teams and
those 4 teams are in the top ~20 in the nation going into
regionals.
I find it ironic that people are complaining about strength
bids over size bids when size bids were one of the biggest
complaints about the system 2 years ago and earlier.
footblock
of bids. I don't think the algorithm is accurate enough and
I think that as a way to compensate for that, the number of
bids/region should be capped at 3. Also, the regions are now
smaller, and the womens NW, while strong, no longer includes
northern california. If you looked at old NW region womens
teams, 6 have made nationals this year (stanford and cal now
in the SW). Thus, 4 bids for a region just shouldn't be
necessary anymore. No doubt the western teams are strong,
but it stretches my belief that the 4th best team from the
NW or NC is better than the 2nd best team from the
southeast, atlantic coast or great lakes. (At least in
mens). I think too much faith is put into the rankings
algorithm. I don't think an extra bid to natties should be
based on a point or there. That is why no college sports
rankings rely entirely on a co/mputer ranking. It can't
capture all the variables.
Also, how did one region get 5 bids to natties last year?
The cap then, as now is 4 bids/region.
footblock
former nw womens teams made natties this year.
Keith Larsen
for bids? That makes no sense at all. Really, no sense at all.
#1. How many regions had B teams fill out their 16 team field?
#2. How many teams in the 13-16 slots were handed bids from teams that
didn't want to travel and happened to be close?
#3. When the new regions were created, and regionals are then held at
extreme corners (Denver for example) there was a clear statement sent
by the USAU that a full region was not the #1 goal.
I don't think regions that aren't full are good for the growth of the
sport. What does it really matter that the #16 seed didn't make it?
Did that change who was going to go to Nationals? Did the 2nd or 3rd
best team in the Northwest that should have had one of those bids not
show? Did those 11 teams all help contribute to earning the region the
4 bids they got.
Before we start complaining about regional attendance lets decide if
full regionals with exactly 16 teams in each is really a factor in
sending the best teams to nationals. You can't punish teams that
deserve a spot at nationals because the USAU didn't make it easy for
the mid-level teams to attend the next level of competition.
[Let's pretend we are NCAA Football]
Sorry Big 12, we are taking your bid away from going to the Cotton
Bowl next year. You only have 10 teams now, and without Colorado and
Nebraska you don't deserve the same number of bowl games.
Alex
inaccurate, it would be good to point out actual examples of
where you think it has gone wrong. There were a couple of
subjective comparisons of the fourth teams from the NW/NC
and the second team from AC, which agreed with the end of
season rankings.
It seems like you're asking for the rankings to somehow
account for lesser teams playing up or better than their
regular season indicates at regionals when everything is on
the line, which isn't really possible.
Is Michigan a better team than say, Luther? I think pretty
much everybody would say yes. But the bids were allocated on
the basis of 4th team Iowa vs 2nd team Michigan State. By
the regular season, who's better in that matchup? I've yet
to see any cases, after looking at regular season results,
where the relative end of season rankings of two teams I've
compared has been significantly different from what I
thought it should be.
mgd.mitch
> That is why no college sports rankings rely entirely on
> a co/mputer ranking.
BCS bowl allocation. It's not entirely up to the computers,
but they are 1/3rd of the equaiton.
Reggie Fanelli
> for bids? That makes no sense at all. Really, no sense at all.
---the number of teams that ATTEND regionals shouldn't be the
measuring stick for bids.
but a region with ONLY 11 teams at their regional event shouldn't get
4 bids.
4 of 11 teams at one region advancing to the championships is goofy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> #1. How many regions had B teams fill out their 16 team field?
---how many regions had B teams good enough to advance to the sweet 16
of their region?
a couple....but it ain't their fault!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> #3. When the new regions were created, and regionals are then held at
> extreme corners (Denver for example) there was a clear statement sent
> by the USAU that a full region was not the #1 goal.
---is that a 'good' clear message?
...is it a good message to send...that with MORE regions, that there
should be fewer teams competing at the new regional events?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I don't think regions that aren't full are good for the growth of the
> sport. What does it really matter that the #16 seed didn't make it?
---what matters.....is that the 16th team would be there
battling....and having a great college ultimate experience.
what matters worse...is that there ISN'T a 16th...or 12th
team...having a great college ultimate experience.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Before we start complaining about regional attendance lets decide if
> full regionals with exactly 16 teams in each is really a factor in
> sending the best teams to nationals. You can't punish teams that
> deserve a spot at nationals because the USAU didn't make it easy for
> the mid-level teams to attend the next level of competition.
---no....they should be applauded for making it difficult for mid
level teams to attend regionals and have a great college ultimate
experience.
they should be applauded for collecting all those dues and then having
less teams to be concerned with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> [Let's pretend we are NCAA Football]
> Sorry Big 12, we are taking your bid away from going to the Cotton
> Bowl next year. You only have 10 teams now, and without Colorado and
> Nebraska you don't deserve the same number of bowl games.
---huh
mgd.mitch
> anymore. No doubt the western teams are strong, but it
> stretches my belief that the 4th best team from the NW or
> NC is better than the 2nd best team from the southeast,
> atlantic coast or great lakes. (At least in mens).
with this year's regions, you have UCSB finishing #2, Cal,
UCLA, and USC all finishing tied for 5th, and Stanford
finishing tied for 13th. That would be the #4 team from one
of this year's regions kicking some serious butt at natties
against some #1 and #2 teams out of various regions. The 1
autobid per region is fine with me, but strength bids for
the rest. Seemed like the west coast certainly earned their
strength bids last year on the women's side.
huckbucket
bids and 38 teams playing for one bid shows that the
regional boundaries should be looked at.
Question about the ranking algorithm. I know ratings decay
with time, but do they decay if the team doesnt play any
more games? Several highly ranked teams had mediocre records
against big schools and didnt play any games after the
stanford invite, yet still had very high ratings.. can
anyone say anything to that?
Also what happened to the original regional redraw with
wisconsin being the great lakes region? The only reason I
can think of is so that Carleton and wisconsin could play at
regionals. But that would just be blatant bias from the USAU
towards big programs.
BJones
bids and 38 teams playing for one bid shows that the
regional boundaries should be looked at. "
No, there will always be weak regions.
Keith Larsen
> bids and 38 teams playing for one bid shows that the
> regional boundaries should be looked at.
Why? Teams in the South and West should drive even further to make the
region larger? or teams in the East should travel even less to make
the region smaller?
The Big South had 11 basketball teams, UNC-Asheville won the
tournament.
The SWAC had 10 basketball teams, Ark-Pine Bluff won the tournament.
Then they had ANOTHER game where the winner made the round of 64. A
round that had 11 of 16 Big East teams in it.
Stronger conferences get more teams in, would you rather the bids not
be allocated at all, and the USAU just have a selection show?
> BJones said: "There will always be weak regions."
Exactly, and that is why the boundaries don't need to change every
time a region gets stronger or weaker. Hey, maybe Ark-Pine Bluff will
have a great season and get an auto-bid and the SWAC will get two
teams next year. Maybe the Big East will graduate a lot of players and
only have 8 of 16 in the tournament next year. We don't have to
reconstruct the conferences every time strength shifts.
mgd.mitch
> yes, they earned their bids. However 16 teams playing
> for 4 bids and 38 teams playing for one bid shows that the
> regional boundaries should be looked at.
regions, including the metro east that had sections larger
than some regions. The main balance is size....geography
versus population. If you balance out the number of teams
per region, you are going to have most of the west in one
gigantic region that makes travel insane. If you balance
out the geography, then you have the north eastern part of
the country having orders of magnitude more teams per
region.
the current 10 region system was supposed to be a balance
between both. every year, someone is going to complain
about bid allocation, there is no way to satisfy everyone.
personally, i think subsequent efforts should be placed on
making the algorithm the best it can be to best allocate the
strength bids (where ever they may fall), streamlining the
rostering process if it can be improved to keep teams from
getting their results thrown out, and completely split the
DI and DIII post seasons (give D3 schools the choice of
which track to play in and they stay there for the season).
adam.tinker
mentioned yet with all the wacky algorithms these college
kids have been talking about. You may argue that the flaws
with the following system are many (and you'd be correct),
but at the least I think we could argue that all teams
deserving a shot will get one.
College Ultimate Championships = May-hem (or some other,
probably more clever play on words):
64 teams (or 128 if you prefer) meet after regionals to take
part in the single craziest event of the college ultimate
season. Each region is guaranteed a certain number of bids.
I'm proposing a minimum of 4 bids/region. So you have 40
automatic bids, and 24 at-large (strength) bids. You can
keep using your fancy algorithms for allocating the strength
bids. Cap the number of regional bids to May-hem at some
number. I'll propose 4. So any one region can send a maximum
of 8 teams, and a minimum of 4 teams.
I hope this would alleviate complaints that a national
champion contender was unfairly left out of nationals,
though I'm a realist, and I realize people would still
complain that their region's 9th best team was better than
another region's 4th best team. My reply: do more work, and
don't finish 9th next year.
64 teams, 3 days of ultimate, 1 champion left at the end. No
whining.
BJones
would I like to see 64 teams. There aren't enough good teams, and the
top 25 is still questionable.
That being said, holy shit. Go make pools for this year's nationals,
it's going to be crazy.
mgd.mitch
> That being said, holy shit. Go make pools for this
> year's nationals,
> it's going to be crazy.
seed, or (gulp), a #3 pool seed.
paul
and flying out to watch! Maybe it could even become a
destination event at that point, one step closer to
televised...
Reggie Fanelli
> tournament.
> The SWAC had 10 basketball teams, Ark-Pine Bluff won the tournament.
----The Big South and The SWAC should each be UOA Fall College Season
Conference Tournament events this year.
contact me if you're interested.....and/or interested in hosting.
Mike Gerics
UOA
agerics20 at yahoo dot com