Forum Search:
RSD No Spam
rec.sport.disc without the spam


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions
Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23351] Wed, 06 May 2009 12:03 Go to next message
frizdisc
Messages: 3
Registered: April 2009
Junior Member
There hasn't been that much talk about nationals, only two weeks away.
Any good attempts at seeding? Predictions? Who has a chance to win it
all?

There are a lot teams that aren't perennial contenders this year, and
a lot a parity. Looks to shape up to be one of the more exciting
nationals with a lot of potential for upsets.
Re: Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23360 is a reply to message #23351] Wed, 06 May 2009 13:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
clankerton
Messages: 10
Registered: April 2009
Junior Member
Here is an attempt..

1. Carleton – 1-1 vs Colorado and loss to NC State

2. Colorado – 1-1 vs Carleton and Wisconsin, losses to Cal and UCSB

3. Cornell – loss to Colorado, beat Virginia

4. Virginia – loss to Cornell, beat Wisconsin and Stanford

5. Wisconsin – 0-2 vs Carleton, 0-1 vs Virginia, beat Tufts, losses to
Kansas and UCSB

6-9. 6 could go to either Stanford or Tufts. I think if it goes to
Stanford, Cal is the 7 and Tufts is the 8, Pitt is the 9, if it goes
to Tufts, Pitt is the 7, Stanford is the 8, Cal is the 9

10. Luther – beat Williams, loss to Michigan

11. Williams – loss to Luther, beat Stanford

12. Minnesota – beat Tufts, Kansas, and UCSD

The rest are very difficult because there are teams that have to be
below other teams in their region that would be seeded higher had they
done better at Regionals (in terms of results vs other Nationals teams
UCSB > UCSD, Michigan > Illinois, NC State > Georgia, Kansas > Texas)

13. UCSD – beat Illinois
14. UCSB

No clue how to seed the rest…
Georgia beat Illinois, who beat Texas, who beat Georgia

15. Illinois
16. Michigan
17. Georgia
18. NC State
19. Texas
20. Kansas

Based on this format (not sure if this is what it will be, but I saw
it somewhere) and Tufts at 6…

Pool A Pool B Pool C Pool D
Seed #1 Seed #2 Seed #3 Seed #4
Seed #8 Seed #7 Seed #6 Seed #5
Seed #12 Seed #11 Seed #10 Seed #9
Seed #13 Seed #14 Seed #15 Seed #16
Seed #17 Seed #18 Seed #19 Seed #20

this would result in…

A B
C D
Carleton Colorado
Cornell Virginia
Stanford Pitt
Tufts Wisconsin
Minnesota Williams
Luther Cal
UCSD UCSB
Illinois Michigan
Georgia NC State
Texas Kansas

I doubt they will end up looking like this, but it was worth a shot…
Re: Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23362 is a reply to message #23360] Wed, 06 May 2009 13:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joaqman
Messages: 115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
On May 6, 1:00 pm, clanker...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here is an attempt..
>
> 1. Carleton – 1-1 vs Colorado and loss to NC State
>
> 2. Colorado – 1-1 vs Carleton and Wisconsin, losses to Cal and UCSB
>
> 3. Cornell – loss to Colorado, beat Virginia
>
> 4. Virginia – loss to Cornell, beat Wisconsin and Stanford
>
> 5. Wisconsin – 0-2 vs Carleton, 0-1 vs Virginia, beat Tufts, losses to
> Kansas and UCSB
>
> 6-9. 6 could go to either Stanford or Tufts. I think if it goes to
> Stanford, Cal is the 7 and Tufts is the 8, Pitt is the 9, if it goes
> to Tufts, Pitt is the 7, Stanford is the 8, Cal is the 9
>
> 10. Luther – beat Williams, loss to Michigan
>
> 11. Williams – loss to Luther, beat Stanford
>
> 12. Minnesota – beat Tufts, Kansas, and UCSD
>
> The rest are very difficult because there are teams that have to be
> below other teams in their region that would be seeded higher had they
> done better at Regionals (in terms of results vs other Nationals teams
> UCSB > UCSD, Michigan > Illinois, NC State > Georgia, Kansas > Texas)
>
> 13. UCSD – beat Illinois
> 14. UCSB
>
> No clue how to seed the rest…
> Georgia beat Illinois, who beat Texas, who beat Georgia
>
> 15. Illinois
> 16. Michigan
> 17. Georgia
> 18. NC State
> 19. Texas
> 20. Kansas
>
> Based on this format (not sure if this is what it will be, but I saw
> it somewhere) and Tufts at 6…
>
>  Pool A       Pool B       Pool C       Pool D
>  Seed #1    Seed #2    Seed #3    Seed #4
>  Seed #8    Seed #7    Seed #6    Seed #5
>  Seed #12  Seed #11  Seed #10  Seed #9
>  Seed #13  Seed #14  Seed #15  Seed #16
>  Seed #17  Seed #18  Seed #19  Seed #20
>
> this would result in…
>
> A                            B
> C                             D
> Carleton                 Colorado
> Cornell                       Virginia
> Stanford                 Pitt
> Tufts                          Wisconsin
> Minnesota              Williams
> Luther                       Cal
> UCSD                    UCSB
> Illinois                      Michigan
> Georgia                  NC State
> Texas                       Kansas
>
> I doubt they will end up looking like this, but it was worth a shot…

I think you forgot that the Metro East sucks.
Re: Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23398 is a reply to message #23360] Wed, 06 May 2009 16:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aghesquiere
Messages: 36
Registered: October 2008
Member
Eh, does Virgina really deserve the 4 seed because Florida had a bad
tournament? Their body of work this season is hardly extraordinary.
Does Cornell deserve the 3 seed - they've beaten Virginia but who
else??? There are LOTS of unanswerable questions using head-to-head
results to seed this thing. I think the best way, by far since the
head-to-heads are so weak in this case, is to rely most heavily on the
UPA strength algorithms. At this point in the season the Vegas
results are not considered very strongly and this algorithm is the
best compilation of recent common-opponent results we've got. Using
UPA ranking as the main guide, adjusting for Regional finish
requirements, and with a slight bit of "sanity check" thrown in,
here's my version (backed by observations at Stanford, Centex, and
more)

Here's what I think the seeding should be. I'm waffling about putting
Cal at 7 and Cornell/Virginia at 5/6, but that is the only place I
have real doubts. Bring on intelligent feedback.

1. Carleton
2. Colorado
3. Stanford (wiso/stanford tied 3rd in my mind, swapped for Cal
rematch)
4. Wisconsin (last year finalist, very strong season deserves higher
seed than RRI dictates)
5. California (better RRI than Wisconsin, better quality wins than
Cornell, higher RRI breaks tie)
6. Cornell (next best RRI, head-to-head vs. Virginia)
7. Virginia (whacky season, loss to Cornell and many worse teams,
great RRI due to regionals victory)
8. Tufts (best RRI in remaining teams, unproven against top tier)
9. Pittsburgh (same high RRI, loss to Tufts)
10. Illinois (I'd like to seed Michigan higher, but cant justify
Illinois being that high)
11. Michigan (as high as could go with Illinois ahead of them)
12. Williams (RRI good, head-to-head over Georgia)
13. Georgia (poor RRI, but ahead of NC State)
14. NC State (best of remaining teams, no head-to-head wins against
anybody but Carleton)
15. Texas (south champ but horrible RRI. win over Georgia, so could
be 13)
16. Kansas (head-to-head over UCSD)
17. UCSD (crushed UM)
18. Minnesota (ahead of Luther)
19. Luther (better RRI than UCSD)
20. UCSB (worst RRI of nationals teams, but some quality wins anyway.
very tough last seed)

For the curious, this gives:
A:
Carleton
Tufts
Pittsburgh
Kansas
UCSD

B:
Colorado
Virginia
Illinois
Texas
Luther

C:
Stanford
Cornell
Michigan
NC State
Minnesota

D:
Wisconsin
California
Williams
Georgia
UCSD


On May 6, 1:00 pm, clanker...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here is an attempt..
>
> 1. Carleton – 1-1 vs Colorado and loss to NC State
>
> 2. Colorado – 1-1 vs Carleton and Wisconsin, losses to Cal and UCSB
>
> 3. Cornell – loss to Colorado, beat Virginia
>
> 4. Virginia – loss to Cornell, beat Wisconsin and Stanford
>
> 5. Wisconsin – 0-2 vs Carleton, 0-1 vs Virginia, beat Tufts, losses to
> Kansas and UCSB
>
> 6-9. 6 could go to either Stanford or Tufts. I think if it goes to
> Stanford, Cal is the 7 and Tufts is the 8, Pitt is the 9, if it goes
> to Tufts, Pitt is the 7, Stanford is the 8, Cal is the 9
>
> 10. Luther – beat Williams, loss to Michigan
>
> 11. Williams – loss to Luther, beat Stanford
>
> 12. Minnesota – beat Tufts, Kansas, and UCSD
>
> The rest are very difficult because there are teams that have to be
> below other teams in their region that would be seeded higher had they
> done better at Regionals (in terms of results vs other Nationals teams
> UCSB > UCSD, Michigan > Illinois, NC State > Georgia, Kansas > Texas)
>
> 13. UCSD – beat Illinois
> 14. UCSB
>
> No clue how to seed the rest…
> Georgia beat Illinois, who beat Texas, who beat Georgia
>
> 15. Illinois
> 16. Michigan
> 17. Georgia
> 18. NC State
> 19. Texas
> 20. Kansas
>
> Based on this format (not sure if this is what it will be, but I saw
> it somewhere) and Tufts at 6…
>
>  Pool A       Pool B       Pool C       Pool D
>  Seed #1    Seed #2    Seed #3    Seed #4
>  Seed #8    Seed #7    Seed #6    Seed #5
>  Seed #12  Seed #11  Seed #10  Seed #9
>  Seed #13  Seed #14  Seed #15  Seed #16
>  Seed #17  Seed #18  Seed #19  Seed #20
>
> this would result in…
>
> A                            B
> C                             D
> Carleton                 Colorado
> Cornell                       Virginia
> Stanford                 Pitt
> Tufts                          Wisconsin
> Minnesota              Williams
> Luther                       Cal
> UCSD                    UCSB
> Illinois                      Michigan
> Georgia                  NC State
> Texas                       Kansas
>
> I doubt they will end up looking like this, but it was worth a shot…
Re: Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23428 is a reply to message #23398] Wed, 06 May 2009 20:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dstodds24
Messages: 195
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 6, 7:44 pm, Dutchy <aghesqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eh, does Virgina really deserve the 4 seed because Florida had a bad
> tournament?  Their body of work this season is hardly extraordinary.
> Does Cornell deserve the 3 seed - they've beaten Virginia but who
> else???  There are LOTS of unanswerable questions using head-to-head
> results to seed this thing.  I think the best way, by far since the
> head-to-heads are so weak in this case, is to rely most heavily on the
> UPA strength algorithms.  At this point in the season the Vegas
> results are not considered very strongly and this algorithm is the
> best compilation of recent common-opponent results we've got.  Using
> UPA ranking as the main guide, adjusting for Regional finish
> requirements, and with a slight bit of "sanity check" thrown in,
> here's my version (backed by observations at Stanford, Centex, and
> more)
>
> Here's what I think the seeding should be.  I'm waffling about putting
> Cal at 7 and Cornell/Virginia at 5/6, but that is the only place I
> have real doubts.  Bring on intelligent feedback.
>
> 1. Carleton
> 2. Colorado
> 3. Stanford (wiso/stanford tied 3rd in my mind, swapped for Cal
> rematch)
> 4. Wisconsin (last year finalist, very strong season deserves higher
> seed than RRI dictates)
> 5. California (better RRI than Wisconsin, better quality wins than
> Cornell, higher RRI breaks tie)
> 6. Cornell (next best RRI, head-to-head vs. Virginia)
> 7. Virginia (whacky season, loss to Cornell and many worse teams,
> great RRI due to regionals victory)
> 8. Tufts (best RRI in remaining teams, unproven against top tier)
> 9. Pittsburgh (same high RRI, loss to Tufts)
> 10. Illinois (I'd like to seed Michigan higher, but cant justify
> Illinois being that high)
> 11. Michigan (as high as could go with Illinois ahead of them)
> 12. Williams (RRI good, head-to-head over Georgia)
> 13. Georgia (poor RRI, but ahead of NC State)
> 14. NC State (best of remaining teams, no head-to-head wins against
> anybody but Carleton)
> 15. Texas (south champ but horrible RRI.  win over Georgia, so could
> be 13)
> 16. Kansas (head-to-head over UCSD)
> 17. UCSD (crushed UM)
> 18. Minnesota (ahead of Luther)
> 19. Luther (better RRI than UCSD)
> 20. UCSB (worst RRI of nationals teams, but some quality wins anyway.
> very tough last seed)
>
> For the curious, this gives:
> A:
> Carleton
> Tufts
> Pittsburgh
> Kansas
> UCSD
>
> B:
> Colorado
> Virginia
> Illinois
> Texas
> Luther
>
> C:
> Stanford
> Cornell
> Michigan
> NC State
> Minnesota
>
> D:
> Wisconsin
> California
> Williams
> Georgia
> UCSD
>
> On May 6, 1:00 pm, clanker...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Here is an attempt..
>
> > 1. Carleton – 1-1 vs Colorado and loss to NC State
>
> > 2. Colorado – 1-1 vs Carleton and Wisconsin, losses to Cal and UCSB
>
> > 3. Cornell – loss to Colorado, beat Virginia
>
> > 4. Virginia – loss to Cornell, beat Wisconsin and Stanford
>
> > 5. Wisconsin – 0-2 vs Carleton, 0-1 vs Virginia, beat Tufts, losses to
> > Kansas and UCSB
>
> > 6-9. 6 could go to either Stanford or Tufts. I think if it goes to
> > Stanford, Cal is the 7 and Tufts is the 8, Pitt is the 9, if it goes
> > to Tufts, Pitt is the 7, Stanford is the 8, Cal is the 9
>
> > 10. Luther – beat Williams, loss to Michigan
>
> > 11. Williams – loss to Luther, beat Stanford
>
> > 12. Minnesota – beat Tufts, Kansas, and UCSD
>
> > The rest are very difficult because there are teams that have to be
> > below other teams in their region that would be seeded higher had they
> > done better at Regionals (in terms of results vs other Nationals teams
> > UCSB > UCSD, Michigan > Illinois, NC State > Georgia, Kansas > Texas)
>
> > 13. UCSD – beat Illinois
> > 14. UCSB
>
> > No clue how to seed the rest…
> > Georgia beat Illinois, who beat Texas, who beat Georgia
>
> > 15. Illinois
> > 16. Michigan
> > 17. Georgia
> > 18. NC State
> > 19. Texas
> > 20. Kansas
>
> > Based on this format (not sure if this is what it will be, but I saw
> > it somewhere) and Tufts at 6…
>
> >  Pool A       Pool B       Pool C       Pool D
> >  Seed #1    Seed #2    Seed #3    Seed #4
> >  Seed #8    Seed #7    Seed #6    Seed #5
> >  Seed #12  Seed #11  Seed #10  Seed #9
> >  Seed #13  Seed #14  Seed #15  Seed #16
> >  Seed #17  Seed #18  Seed #19  Seed #20
>
> > this would result in…
>
> > A                            B
> > C                             D
> > Carleton                 Colorado
> > Cornell                       Virginia
> > Stanford                 Pitt
> > Tufts                          Wisconsin
> > Minnesota              Williams
> > Luther                       Cal
> > UCSD                    UCSB
> > Illinois                      Michigan
> > Georgia                  NC State
> > Texas                       Kansas
>
> > I doubt they will end up looking like this, but it was worth a shot…

Luther higher than Minnesota
Re: Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23430 is a reply to message #23398] Wed, 06 May 2009 21:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ireallyamjohnsmith
Messages: 20
Registered: February 2009
Junior Member
On May 6, 6:44 pm, Dutchy <aghesqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eh, does Virgina really deserve the 4 seed because Florida had a bad
> tournament?  Their body of work this season is hardly extraordinary.
> Does Cornell deserve the 3 seed - they've beaten Virginia but who
> else???  There are LOTS of unanswerable questions using head-to-head
> results to seed this thing.  I think the best way, by far since the
> head-to-heads are so weak in this case, is to rely most heavily on the
> UPA strength algorithms.  At this point in the season the Vegas
> results are not considered very strongly and this algorithm is the
> best compilation of recent common-opponent results we've got.  Using
> UPA ranking as the main guide, adjusting for Regional finish
> requirements, and with a slight bit of "sanity check" thrown in,
> here's my version (backed by observations at Stanford, Centex, and
> more)
>
> Here's what I think the seeding should be.  I'm waffling about putting
> Cal at 7 and Cornell/Virginia at 5/6, but that is the only place I
> have real doubts.  Bring on intelligent feedback.
>
> 1. Carleton
> 2. Colorado
> 3. Stanford (wiso/stanford tied 3rd in my mind, swapped for Cal
> rematch)
> 4. Wisconsin (last year finalist, very strong season deserves higher
> seed than RRI dictates)
> 5. California (better RRI than Wisconsin, better quality wins than
> Cornell, higher RRI breaks tie)
> 6. Cornell (next best RRI, head-to-head vs. Virginia)
> 7. Virginia (whacky season, loss to Cornell and many worse teams,
> great RRI due to regionals victory)
> 8. Tufts (best RRI in remaining teams, unproven against top tier)
> 9. Pittsburgh (same high RRI, loss to Tufts)
> 10. Illinois (I'd like to seed Michigan higher, but cant justify
> Illinois being that high)
> 11. Michigan (as high as could go with Illinois ahead of them)
> 12. Williams (RRI good, head-to-head over Georgia)
> 13. Georgia (poor RRI, but ahead of NC State)
> 14. NC State (best of remaining teams, no head-to-head wins against
> anybody but Carleton)
> 15. Texas (south champ but horrible RRI.  win over Georgia, so could
> be 13)
> 16. Kansas (head-to-head over UCSD)
> 17. UCSD (crushed UM)
> 18. Minnesota (ahead of Luther)
> 19. Luther (better RRI than UCSD)
> 20. UCSB (worst RRI of nationals teams, but some quality wins anyway.
> very tough last seed)
>
> For the curious, this gives:
> A:
> Carleton
> Tufts
> Pittsburgh
> Kansas
> UCSD
>
> B:
> Colorado
> Virginia
> Illinois
> Texas
> Luther
>
> C:
> Stanford
> Cornell
> Michigan
> NC State
> Minnesota
>
> D:
> Wisconsin
> California
> Williams
> Georgia
> UCSD
>
> On May 6, 1:00 pm, clanker...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here is an attempt..
>
> > 1. Carleton – 1-1 vs Colorado and loss to NC State
>
> > 2. Colorado – 1-1 vs Carleton and Wisconsin, losses to Cal and UCSB
>
> > 3. Cornell – loss to Colorado, beat Virginia
>
> > 4. Virginia – loss to Cornell, beat Wisconsin and Stanford
>
> > 5. Wisconsin – 0-2 vs Carleton, 0-1 vs Virginia, beat Tufts, losses to
> > Kansas and UCSB
>
> > 6-9. 6 could go to either Stanford or Tufts. I think if it goes to
> > Stanford, Cal is the 7 and Tufts is the 8, Pitt is the 9, if it goes
> > to Tufts, Pitt is the 7, Stanford is the 8, Cal is the 9
>
> > 10. Luther – beat Williams, loss to Michigan
>
> > 11. Williams – loss to Luther, beat Stanford
>
> > 12. Minnesota – beat Tufts, Kansas, and UCSD
>
> > The rest are very difficult because there are teams that have to be
> > below other teams in their region that would be seeded higher had they
> > done better at Regionals (in terms of results vs other Nationals teams
> > UCSB > UCSD, Michigan > Illinois, NC State > Georgia, Kansas > Texas)
>
> > 13. UCSD – beat Illinois
> > 14. UCSB
>
> > No clue how to seed the rest…
> > Georgia beat Illinois, who beat Texas, who beat Georgia
>
> > 15. Illinois
> > 16. Michigan
> > 17. Georgia
> > 18. NC State
> > 19. Texas
> > 20. Kansas
>
> > Based on this format (not sure if this is what it will be, but I saw
> > it somewhere) and Tufts at 6…
>
> >  Pool A       Pool B       Pool C       Pool D
> >  Seed #1    Seed #2    Seed #3    Seed #4
> >  Seed #8    Seed #7    Seed #6    Seed #5
> >  Seed #12  Seed #11  Seed #10  Seed #9
> >  Seed #13  Seed #14  Seed #15  Seed #16
> >  Seed #17  Seed #18  Seed #19  Seed #20
>
> > this would result in…
>
> > A                            B
> > C                             D
> > Carleton                 Colorado
> > Cornell                       Virginia
> > Stanford                 Pitt
> > Tufts                          Wisconsin
> > Minnesota              Williams
> > Luther                       Cal
> > UCSD                    UCSB
> > Illinois                      Michigan
> > Georgia                  NC State
> > Texas                       Kansas
>
> > I doubt they will end up looking like this, but it was worth a shot…- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Tufts is terrible.
Re: Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23433 is a reply to message #23430] Wed, 06 May 2009 22:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rhbigley
Messages: 26
Registered: December 2008
Junior Member
On May 6, 11:06 pm, John Smith <ireallyamjohnsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 6:44 pm, Dutchy <aghesqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Eh, does Virgina really deserve the 4 seed because Florida had a bad
> > tournament?  Their body of work this season is hardly extraordinary.
> > Does Cornell deserve the 3 seed - they've beaten Virginia but who
> > else???  There are LOTS of unanswerable questions using head-to-head
> > results to seed this thing.  I think the best way, by far since the
> > head-to-heads are so weak in this case, is to rely most heavily on the
> > UPA strength algorithms.  At this point in the season the Vegas
> > results are not considered very strongly and this algorithm is the
> > best compilation of recent common-opponent results we've got.  Using
> > UPA ranking as the main guide, adjusting for Regional finish
> > requirements, and with a slight bit of "sanity check" thrown in,
> > here's my version (backed by observations at Stanford, Centex, and
> > more)
>
> > Here's what I think the seeding should be.  I'm waffling about putting
> > Cal at 7 and Cornell/Virginia at 5/6, but that is the only place I
> > have real doubts.  Bring on intelligent feedback.
>
> > 1. Carleton
> > 2. Colorado
> > 3. Stanford (wiso/stanford tied 3rd in my mind, swapped for Cal
> > rematch)
> > 4. Wisconsin (last year finalist, very strong season deserves higher
> > seed than RRI dictates)
> > 5. California (better RRI than Wisconsin, better quality wins than
> > Cornell, higher RRI breaks tie)
> > 6. Cornell (next best RRI, head-to-head vs. Virginia)
> > 7. Virginia (whacky season, loss to Cornell and many worse teams,
> > great RRI due to regionals victory)
> > 8. Tufts (best RRI in remaining teams, unproven against top tier)
> > 9. Pittsburgh (same high RRI, loss to Tufts)
> > 10. Illinois (I'd like to seed Michigan higher, but cant justify
> > Illinois being that high)
> > 11. Michigan (as high as could go with Illinois ahead of them)
> > 12. Williams (RRI good, head-to-head over Georgia)
> > 13. Georgia (poor RRI, but ahead of NC State)
> > 14. NC State (best of remaining teams, no head-to-head wins against
> > anybody but Carleton)
> > 15. Texas (south champ but horrible RRI.  win over Georgia, so could
> > be 13)
> > 16. Kansas (head-to-head over UCSD)
> > 17. UCSD (crushed UM)
> > 18. Minnesota (ahead of Luther)
> > 19. Luther (better RRI than UCSD)
> > 20. UCSB (worst RRI of nationals teams, but some quality wins anyway.
> > very tough last seed)
>
> > For the curious, this gives:
> > A:
> > Carleton
> > Tufts
> > Pittsburgh
> > Kansas
> > UCSD
>
> > B:
> > Colorado
> > Virginia
> > Illinois
> > Texas
> > Luther
>
> > C:
> > Stanford
> > Cornell
> > Michigan
> > NC State
> > Minnesota
>
> > D:
> > Wisconsin
> > California
> > Williams
> > Georgia
> > UCSD
>
> > On May 6, 1:00 pm, clanker...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Here is an attempt..
>
> > > 1. Carleton – 1-1 vs Colorado and loss to NC State
>
> > > 2. Colorado – 1-1 vs Carleton and Wisconsin, losses to Cal and UCSB
>
> > > 3. Cornell – loss to Colorado, beat Virginia
>
> > > 4. Virginia – loss to Cornell, beat Wisconsin and Stanford
>
> > > 5. Wisconsin – 0-2 vs Carleton, 0-1 vs Virginia, beat Tufts, losses to
> > > Kansas and UCSB
>
> > > 6-9. 6 could go to either Stanford or Tufts. I think if it goes to
> > > Stanford, Cal is the 7 and Tufts is the 8, Pitt is the 9, if it goes
> > > to Tufts, Pitt is the 7, Stanford is the 8, Cal is the 9
>
> > > 10. Luther – beat Williams, loss to Michigan
>
> > > 11. Williams – loss to Luther, beat Stanford
>
> > > 12. Minnesota – beat Tufts, Kansas, and UCSD
>
> > > The rest are very difficult because there are teams that have to be
> > > below other teams in their region that would be seeded higher had they
> > > done better at Regionals (in terms of results vs other Nationals teams
> > > UCSB > UCSD, Michigan > Illinois, NC State > Georgia, Kansas > Texas)
>
> > > 13. UCSD – beat Illinois
> > > 14. UCSB
>
> > > No clue how to seed the rest…
> > > Georgia beat Illinois, who beat Texas, who beat Georgia
>
> > > 15. Illinois
> > > 16. Michigan
> > > 17. Georgia
> > > 18. NC State
> > > 19. Texas
> > > 20. Kansas
>
> > > Based on this format (not sure if this is what it will be, but I saw
> > > it somewhere) and Tufts at 6…
>
> > >  Pool A       Pool B       Pool C       Pool D
> > >  Seed #1    Seed #2    Seed #3    Seed #4
> > >  Seed #8    Seed #7    Seed #6    Seed #5
> > >  Seed #12  Seed #11  Seed #10  Seed #9
> > >  Seed #13  Seed #14  Seed #15  Seed #16
> > >  Seed #17  Seed #18  Seed #19  Seed #20
>
> > > this would result in…
>
> > > A                            B
> > > C                             D
> > > Carleton                 Colorado
> > > Cornell                       Virginia
> > > Stanford                 Pitt
> > > Tufts                          Wisconsin
> > > Minnesota              Williams
> > > Luther                       Cal
> > > UCSD                    UCSB
> > > Illinois                      Michigan
> > > Georgia                  NC State
> > > Texas                       Kansas
>
> > > I doubt they will end up looking like this, but it was worth a shot…- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Tufts is terrible.

Kansas is seeded too low. They have head-to-head wins over Wisco,
Pitt, UCSB, UCSD, and Georgia. Also, not that is taken into actual
consideration but, They/WE were one point away from being Regional
champs "lest we forget". (read: Thanks alot Texas for screwing our
chances of cracking top ten.)
Re: Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23438 is a reply to message #23433] Wed, 06 May 2009 23:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rdelcasino
Messages: 65
Registered: October 2008
Member
On May 7, 12:29 am, "rhbig...@gmail.com" <rhbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 11:06 pm, John Smith <ireallyamjohnsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 6:44 pm, Dutchy <aghesqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eh, does Virgina really deserve the 4 seed because Florida had a bad
> > > tournament?  Their body of work this season is hardly extraordinary..
> > > Does Cornell deserve the 3 seed - they've beaten Virginia but who
> > > else???  There are LOTS of unanswerable questions using head-to-head
> > > results to seed this thing.  I think the best way, by far since the
> > > head-to-heads are so weak in this case, is to rely most heavily on the
> > > UPA strength algorithms.  At this point in the season the Vegas
> > > results are not considered very strongly and this algorithm is the
> > > best compilation of recent common-opponent results we've got.  Using
> > > UPA ranking as the main guide, adjusting for Regional finish
> > > requirements, and with a slight bit of "sanity check" thrown in,
> > > here's my version (backed by observations at Stanford, Centex, and
> > > more)
>
> > > Here's what I think the seeding should be.  I'm waffling about putting
> > > Cal at 7 and Cornell/Virginia at 5/6, but that is the only place I
> > > have real doubts.  Bring on intelligent feedback.
>
> > > 1. Carleton
> > > 2. Colorado
> > > 3. Stanford (wiso/stanford tied 3rd in my mind, swapped for Cal
> > > rematch)
> > > 4. Wisconsin (last year finalist, very strong season deserves higher
> > > seed than RRI dictates)
> > > 5. California (better RRI than Wisconsin, better quality wins than
> > > Cornell, higher RRI breaks tie)
> > > 6. Cornell (next best RRI, head-to-head vs. Virginia)
> > > 7. Virginia (whacky season, loss to Cornell and many worse teams,
> > > great RRI due to regionals victory)
> > > 8. Tufts (best RRI in remaining teams, unproven against top tier)
> > > 9. Pittsburgh (same high RRI, loss to Tufts)
> > > 10. Illinois (I'd like to seed Michigan higher, but cant justify
> > > Illinois being that high)
> > > 11. Michigan (as high as could go with Illinois ahead of them)
> > > 12. Williams (RRI good, head-to-head over Georgia)
> > > 13. Georgia (poor RRI, but ahead of NC State)
> > > 14. NC State (best of remaining teams, no head-to-head wins against
> > > anybody but Carleton)
> > > 15. Texas (south champ but horrible RRI.  win over Georgia, so could
> > > be 13)
> > > 16. Kansas (head-to-head over UCSD)
> > > 17. UCSD (crushed UM)
> > > 18. Minnesota (ahead of Luther)
> > > 19. Luther (better RRI than UCSD)
> > > 20. UCSB (worst RRI of nationals teams, but some quality wins anyway.
> > > very tough last seed)
>
> > > For the curious, this gives:
> > > A:
> > > Carleton
> > > Tufts
> > > Pittsburgh
> > > Kansas
> > > UCSD
>
> > > B:
> > > Colorado
> > > Virginia
> > > Illinois
> > > Texas
> > > Luther
>
> > > C:
> > > Stanford
> > > Cornell
> > > Michigan
> > > NC State
> > > Minnesota
>
> > > D:
> > > Wisconsin
> > > California
> > > Williams
> > > Georgia
> > > UCSD
>
> > > On May 6, 1:00 pm, clanker...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Here is an attempt..
>
> > > > 1. Carleton – 1-1 vs Colorado and loss to NC State
>
> > > > 2. Colorado – 1-1 vs Carleton and Wisconsin, losses to Cal and UCSB
>
> > > > 3. Cornell – loss to Colorado, beat Virginia
>
> > > > 4. Virginia – loss to Cornell, beat Wisconsin and Stanford
>
> > > > 5. Wisconsin – 0-2 vs Carleton, 0-1 vs Virginia, beat Tufts, losses to
> > > > Kansas and UCSB
>
> > > > 6-9. 6 could go to either Stanford or Tufts. I think if it goes to
> > > > Stanford, Cal is the 7 and Tufts is the 8, Pitt is the 9, if it goes
> > > > to Tufts, Pitt is the 7, Stanford is the 8, Cal is the 9
>
> > > > 10. Luther – beat Williams, loss to Michigan
>
> > > > 11. Williams – loss to Luther, beat Stanford
>
> > > > 12. Minnesota – beat Tufts, Kansas, and UCSD
>
> > > > The rest are very difficult because there are teams that have to be
> > > > below other teams in their region that would be seeded higher had they
> > > > done better at Regionals (in terms of results vs other Nationals teams
> > > > UCSB > UCSD, Michigan > Illinois, NC State > Georgia, Kansas > Texas)
>
> > > > 13. UCSD – beat Illinois
> > > > 14. UCSB
>
> > > > No clue how to seed the rest…
> > > > Georgia beat Illinois, who beat Texas, who beat Georgia
>
> > > > 15. Illinois
> > > > 16. Michigan
> > > > 17. Georgia
> > > > 18. NC State
> > > > 19. Texas
> > > > 20. Kansas
>
> > > > Based on this format (not sure if this is what it will be, but I saw
> > > > it somewhere) and Tufts at 6…
>
> > > >  Pool A       Pool B       Pool C       Pool D
> > > >  Seed #1    Seed #2    Seed #3    Seed #4
> > > >  Seed #8    Seed #7    Seed #6    Seed #5
> > > >  Seed #12  Seed #11  Seed #10  Seed #9
> > > >  Seed #13  Seed #14  Seed #15  Seed #16
> > > >  Seed #17  Seed #18  Seed #19  Seed #20
>
> > > > this would result in…
>
> > > > A                            B
> > > > C                             D
> > > > Carleton                 Colorado
> > > > Cornell                       Virginia
> > > > Stanford                 Pitt
> > > > Tufts                          Wisconsin
> > > > Minnesota              Williams
> > > > Luther                       Cal
> > > > UCSD                    UCSB
> > > > Illinois                      Michigan
> > > > Georgia                  NC State
> > > > Texas                       Kansas
>
> > > > I doubt they will end up looking like this, but it was worth a shot…- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Tufts is terrible.
>
> Kansas is seeded too low.  They have head-to-head wins over Wisco,
> Pitt, UCSB, UCSD, and Georgia.  Also, not that is taken into actual
> consideration but, They/WE were one point away from being Regional
> champs "lest we forget". (read: Thanks alot Texas for screwing our
> chances of cracking top ten.)

I think you mean yo say YOU screwed your chances by losing to Texas.
Regardless of how they did at regionals they were gonna be a low seed.
You lost when it counts to a low seed therefore you get a lower seed.
Re: Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23439 is a reply to message #23438] Thu, 07 May 2009 00:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rhb
Messages: 35
Registered: October 2008
Member
On May 7, 1:18 am, rdelcas...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> I think you mean yo say YOU screwed your chances by losing to Texas.
> Regardless of how they did at regionals they were gonna be a low seed.
> You lost when it counts to a low seed therefore you get a lower seed

YEAH. I KNOW. I wish I could channel La Maldad and totally p*wn you
on how half-witted that statement is. Thank you Captain Obvious.
Re: Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23467 is a reply to message #23398] Thu, 07 May 2009 08:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
andrew.m.berry
Messages: 5
Registered: May 2009
Junior Member
On May 6, 7:44 pm, Dutchy <aghesqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eh, does Virgina really deserve the 4 seed because Florida had a bad
> tournament?  Their body of work this season is hardly extraordinary.
> Does Cornell deserve the 3 seed - they've beaten Virginia but who
> else???  There are LOTS of unanswerable questions using head-to-head
> results to seed this thing.  I think the best way, by far since the
> head-to-heads are so weak in this case, is to rely most heavily on the
> UPA strength algorithms.  At this point in the season the Vegas
> results are not considered very strongly and this algorithm is the
> best compilation of recent common-opponent results we've got.  Using
> UPA ranking as the main guide, adjusting for Regional finish
> requirements, and with a slight bit of "sanity check" thrown in,
> here's my version (backed by observations at Stanford, Centex, and
> more)
>
> Here's what I think the seeding should be.  I'm waffling about putting
> Cal at 7 and Cornell/Virginia at 5/6, but that is the only place I
> have real doubts.  Bring on intelligent feedback.
>
> 1. Carleton
> 2. Colorado
> 3. Stanford (wiso/stanford tied 3rd in my mind, swapped for Cal
> rematch)
> 4. Wisconsin (last year finalist, very strong season deserves higher
> seed than RRI dictates)
> 5. California (better RRI than Wisconsin, better quality wins than
> Cornell, higher RRI breaks tie)
> 6. Cornell (next best RRI, head-to-head vs. Virginia)
> 7. Virginia (whacky season, loss to Cornell and many worse teams,
> great RRI due to regionals victory)
> 8. Tufts (best RRI in remaining teams, unproven against top tier)
> 9. Pittsburgh (same high RRI, loss to Tufts)
> 10. Illinois (I'd like to seed Michigan higher, but cant justify
> Illinois being that high)
> 11. Michigan (as high as could go with Illinois ahead of them)
> 12. Williams (RRI good, head-to-head over Georgia)
> 13. Georgia (poor RRI, but ahead of NC State)
> 14. NC State (best of remaining teams, no head-to-head wins against
> anybody but Carleton)
> 15. Texas (south champ but horrible RRI.  win over Georgia, so could
> be 13)
> 16. Kansas (head-to-head over UCSD)
> 17. UCSD (crushed UM)
> 18. Minnesota (ahead of Luther)
> 19. Luther (better RRI than UCSD)
> 20. UCSB (worst RRI of nationals teams, but some quality wins anyway.
> very tough last seed)

The tournament this year is clearly a very hard one to seed, but I
feel this is the best effort so far.

Andrew
Re: Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23475 is a reply to message #23398] Thu, 07 May 2009 09:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
footblock
Messages: 119
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
If we seeded according to the most recent NUMP rankings we'd end up
with something like this: (sorry if Im stealing your thunder Mike G).

However, because of the Illinois regional upset of Michigan I had to
reorder a bit. So I put texas leapfrogging michigan and jumped
illinois up a few spots to 9. I also switched seeds for a few to avoid
regional rematches (Kansas to 14, switched with UCSD to avoid texas
rematch). Also, to avoid central regional rematches I switched UCSB
with Minnesota and williams with UCSB to avoid both NE teams in pool
D. (so UCSB moves down a bit, but not all bad since they have possible
overseeded Illinois and tufts ahead of them) I also moved NC State up
a spot and tufts down one to avoid AC rematch in pool D with
virginia.

So some of the rearrangement is my own opinion on seeding. Also, leave
out Oregon (8) , florida (10) , washington(16) , notre dame (20)...


1 Carleton
2 Colorado
3 Wisconsin
4 Stanford
5 Virginia
6 Cornell
7 Cal Berkeley
8 Texas
9 Illinois
10 Michigan
11 Pittsburgh
12 Georgia
13 UC San Diego
14 Kansas
15 NC State
16 Tufts
17 Luther
18 Minnesota
19 Williams
20 UC Santa Barbara

which would give these pools (which all things considered I think are
pretty even pools. Pool A looks pretty strong though.)

A.
Carleton
Texas
Georgia
UCSD
Luther

B.
Colorado
Cal Berkeley
Pitt
Kansas
Minnesota

C.
Wisconsin
Cornell
Michigan
NC State
Williams

D.
Stanford
Virginia
Illinois
Tufts
UCSB
Re: Open Nationals Seeding and Predictions [message #23477 is a reply to message #23475] Thu, 07 May 2009 09:59 Go to previous message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> If we seeded according to the most recent NUMP rankings we'd end up
> with something like this: (sorry if Im stealing your thunder Mike G).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--hell footblock, as long as someone is taking the time to at least
look at the NUMP Rankings....then i'm happy!
Previous Topic:Mayfest Memorial in KC
Next Topic:NW All-Region
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Apr 7 07:10:49 PDT 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.0RC2.
Copyright ©2001-2009 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software