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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Strength bid objection
Strength bid objection [message #5126] Tue, 04 November 2008 09:01 Go to next message
aghesquiere
Messages: 36
Registered: October 2008
Member
So there has been little talk about the strength bid allocation coming
out of Nationals, I presume the UPA will discuss this once they meet
in January because of how obviously screwed up the system is. Here is
why I think allocating the strength bid to the Central is not
consistent with the rules/goal of the bid...

At the basic level the rule states that "the worst finishing teams of
each Region are compared. The best two finishers are awarded strength
wildcards."

Great, straightforward stuff. The spirit of the rule is that the best
two worst finishers determine the strength bids.

A clause in this wording is if a Region has 4 teams in attendance, the
3rd and 4th teams participate in the evaluation and that if the third
and fourth finishers place above all other worst finishers, the two
strength bids are awarded to that region. Great, that makes sense too
- its consistent with the idea that the worst finishers determine the
bid allocation.

But, then there's the next rule about Regions with 3 finishers... "If
a Region has exactly 3 teams in attendance at Nationals and all 3
place above the 2nd place finishing teams from all the other Regions,
then that Region wins both strength wildcards."

I dont understand this rule, it seems in conflict with the spirit of
the strength bid spirit. If a region has 4 teams, 3 & 4 have to
finish ahead of the *worst* teams from other regions, but if it has 3,
2&3 have to finish above all the second place teams instead of the
worst teams? Why make it harder for a 3 team region to have both
wildcards than a 4 team region? If, as it happened this year, that
another region has 2 very good teams and 1 or 2 second-tier teams,
what is the purpose of requiring the bottom finishers determining the
strength wildcard have to beat those better two teams? Requiring this
allows this situation where the second and third best teams from a
region can place highly but lose the second strength bid to a another
region because of some unreleated/arbitrary performance.

In this case, Ring had no stake in the strength bid outcome and a lost
to GOAT to award the strength wildcard to a region who's best team
finished lower than the worst team from the NW. Further, both NW
teams beat the NE #2 team but could not defend the 4th strength bid
because the tournament format dictated the GOAT/Ring matchup rather
than a game with an interested party. I think its clear that awarding
the second strength bid to the central is against the spirit of the
strength bid and that the NW should have been allowed to play for it
rather than have it lost for them by an un-invested team playing with
no real stake in the outcome. Unless someone can present a compelling
case for keeping it which I have not considered, I believe the correct
thing for the UPA to do is to eliminate the over-complicated and
inconsistent rule about the second place teams.

I'd further suggest the UPA revamp the system for bids and Nationals
qualifications altogether, by instituting an elite club division and
awarding bids to nationals based on regular season results, but that
is the subject of another post.
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5131 is a reply to message #5126] Tue, 04 November 2008 09:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 4, 12:01 pm, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So there has been little talk about the strength bid allocation coming
> out of Nationals, I presume the UPA will discuss this once they meet
> in January because of how obviously screwed up the system is.  Here is
> why I think allocating the strength bid to the Central is not
> consistent with the rules/goal of the bid...
>
> At the basic level the rule states that "the worst finishing teams of
> each Region are compared.  The best two finishers are awarded strength
> wildcards."
>
> Great, straightforward stuff. The spirit of the rule is that the best
> two worst finishers determine the strength bids.
>
> A clause in this wording is if a Region has 4 teams in attendance, the
> 3rd and 4th teams participate in the evaluation and that if the third
> and fourth finishers place above all other worst finishers, the two
> strength bids are awarded to that region.  Great, that makes sense too
> - its consistent with the idea that the worst finishers determine the
> bid allocation.
>
> But, then there's the next rule about Regions with 3 finishers... "If
> a Region has exactly 3 teams in attendance at Nationals and all 3
> place above the 2nd place finishing teams from all the other Regions,
> then that Region wins both strength wildcards."
>
> I dont understand this rule, it seems in conflict with the spirit of
> the strength bid spirit.  If a region has 4 teams, 3 & 4 have to
> finish ahead of the *worst* teams from other regions, but if it has 3,
> 2&3 have to finish above all the second place teams instead of the
> worst teams?  Why make it harder for a 3 team region to have both
> wildcards than a 4 team region?  If, as it happened this year, that
> another region has 2 very good teams and 1 or 2 second-tier teams,
> what is the purpose of requiring the bottom finishers determining the
> strength wildcard have to beat those better two teams?  Requiring this
> allows this situation where the second and third best teams from a
> region can place highly but lose the second strength bid to a another
> region because of some unreleated/arbitrary performance.
>
> In this case, Ring had no stake in the strength bid outcome and a lost
> to GOAT to award the strength wildcard to a region who's best team
> finished lower than the worst team from the NW.  Further, both NW
> teams beat the NE #2 team but could not defend the 4th strength bid
> because the tournament format dictated the GOAT/Ring matchup rather
> than a game with an interested party.  I think its clear that awarding
> the second strength bid to the central is against the spirit of the
> strength bid and that the NW should have been allowed to play for it
> rather than have it lost for them by an un-invested team playing with
> no real stake in the outcome.  Unless someone can present a compelling
> case for keeping it which I have not considered, I believe the correct
> thing for the UPA to do is to eliminate the over-complicated and
> inconsistent rule about the second place teams.
>
> I'd further suggest the UPA revamp the system for bids and Nationals
> qualifications altogether, by instituting an elite club division and
> awarding bids to nationals based on regular season results, but that
> is the subject of another post.

yep, it sounds all fucked upt to me too. par for the course as they
say.
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5134 is a reply to message #5126] Tue, 04 November 2008 09:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Neva Cherniavsky
Messages: 13
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
On Nov 4, 9:01 am, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So there has been little talk about the strength bid allocation coming
> out of Nationals, I presume the UPA will discuss this once they meet
> in January because of how obviously screwed up the system is.  Here is
> why I think allocating the strength bid to the Central is not
> consistent with the rules/goal of the bid...
>
> At the basic level the rule states that "the worst finishing teams of
> each Region are compared.  The best two finishers are awarded strength
> wildcards."
>
> Great, straightforward stuff. The spirit of the rule is that the best
> two worst finishers determine the strength bids.
>
> A clause in this wording is if a Region has 4 teams in attendance, the
> 3rd and 4th teams participate in the evaluation and that if the third
> and fourth finishers place above all other worst finishers, the two
> strength bids are awarded to that region.  Great, that makes sense too
> - its consistent with the idea that the worst finishers determine the
> bid allocation.
>
> But, then there's the next rule about Regions with 3 finishers... "If
> a Region has exactly 3 teams in attendance at Nationals and all 3
> place above the 2nd place finishing teams from all the other Regions,
> then that Region wins both strength wildcards."
>
> I dont understand this rule, it seems in conflict with the spirit of
> the strength bid spirit.  If a region has 4 teams, 3 & 4 have to
> finish ahead of the *worst* teams from other regions, but if it has 3,
> 2&3 have to finish above all the second place teams instead of the
> worst teams?  Why make it harder for a 3 team region to have both
> wildcards than a 4 team region?  If, as it happened this year, that
> another region has 2 very good teams and 1 or 2 second-tier teams,
> what is the purpose of requiring the bottom finishers determining the
> strength wildcard have to beat those better two teams?  Requiring this
> allows this situation where the second and third best teams from a
> region can place highly but lose the second strength bid to a another
> region because of some unreleated/arbitrary performance.
>
> In this case, Ring had no stake in the strength bid outcome and a lost
> to GOAT to award the strength wildcard to a region who's best team
> finished lower than the worst team from the NW.  Further, both NW
> teams beat the NE #2 team but could not defend the 4th strength bid
> because the tournament format dictated the GOAT/Ring matchup rather
> than a game with an interested party.  I think its clear that awarding
> the second strength bid to the central is against the spirit of the
> strength bid and that the NW should have been allowed to play for it
> rather than have it lost for them by an un-invested team playing with
> no real stake in the outcome.  Unless someone can present a compelling
> case for keeping it which I have not considered, I believe the correct
> thing for the UPA to do is to eliminate the over-complicated and
> inconsistent rule about the second place teams.
>
> I'd further suggest the UPA revamp the system for bids and Nationals
> qualifications altogether, by instituting an elite club division and
> awarding bids to nationals based on regular season results, but that
> is the subject of another post.

This is why the NW women are only getting the second strength bid this
year, despite a Fury-Riot finals for the past 3 years and 3 teams in
quarterfinals last year. Last year, the NW got one strength bid and
NE the other, because both regions had 3 teams in the
quarterfinals...but NE actually had four teams at Nationals, and that
fourth team finished 16th.
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5137 is a reply to message #5134] Tue, 04 November 2008 09:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 4, 12:27 pm, Neva Cherniavsky <ncher...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:01 am, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > So there has been little talk about the strength bid allocation coming
> > out of Nationals, I presume the UPA will discuss this once they meet
> > in January because of how obviously screwed up the system is.  Here is
> > why I think allocating the strength bid to the Central is not
> > consistent with the rules/goal of the bid...
>
> > At the basic level the rule states that "the worst finishing teams of
> > each Region are compared.  The best two finishers are awarded strength
> > wildcards."
>
> > Great, straightforward stuff. The spirit of the rule is that the best
> > two worst finishers determine the strength bids.
>
> > A clause in this wording is if a Region has 4 teams in attendance, the
> > 3rd and 4th teams participate in the evaluation and that if the third
> > and fourth finishers place above all other worst finishers, the two
> > strength bids are awarded to that region.  Great, that makes sense too
> > - its consistent with the idea that the worst finishers determine the
> > bid allocation.
>
> > But, then there's the next rule about Regions with 3 finishers... "If
> > a Region has exactly 3 teams in attendance at Nationals and all 3
> > place above the 2nd place finishing teams from all the other Regions,
> > then that Region wins both strength wildcards."
>
> > I dont understand this rule, it seems in conflict with the spirit of
> > the strength bid spirit.  If a region has 4 teams, 3 & 4 have to
> > finish ahead of the *worst* teams from other regions, but if it has 3,
> > 2&3 have to finish above all the second place teams instead of the
> > worst teams?  Why make it harder for a 3 team region to have both
> > wildcards than a 4 team region?  If, as it happened this year, that
> > another region has 2 very good teams and 1 or 2 second-tier teams,
> > what is the purpose of requiring the bottom finishers determining the
> > strength wildcard have to beat those better two teams?  Requiring this
> > allows this situation where the second and third best teams from a
> > region can place highly but lose the second strength bid to a another
> > region because of some unreleated/arbitrary performance.
>
> > In this case, Ring had no stake in the strength bid outcome and a lost
> > to GOAT to award the strength wildcard to a region who's best team
> > finished lower than the worst team from the NW.  Further, both NW
> > teams beat the NE #2 team but could not defend the 4th strength bid
> > because the tournament format dictated the GOAT/Ring matchup rather
> > than a game with an interested party.  I think its clear that awarding
> > the second strength bid to the central is against the spirit of the
> > strength bid and that the NW should have been allowed to play for it
> > rather than have it lost for them by an un-invested team playing with
> > no real stake in the outcome.  Unless someone can present a compelling
> > case for keeping it which I have not considered, I believe the correct
> > thing for the UPA to do is to eliminate the over-complicated and
> > inconsistent rule about the second place teams.
>
> > I'd further suggest the UPA revamp the system for bids and Nationals
> > qualifications altogether, by instituting an elite club division and
> > awarding bids to nationals based on regular season results, but that
> > is the subject of another post.
>
> This is why the NW women are only getting the second strength bid this
> year, despite a Fury-Riot finals for the past 3 years and 3 teams in
> quarterfinals last year.  Last year, the NW got one strength bid and
> NE the other, because both regions had 3 teams in the
> quarterfinals...but NE actually had four teams at Nationals, and that
> fourth team finished 16th.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

this is probably part of why cultimate is proposing a C1 too.
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5139 is a reply to message #5126] Tue, 04 November 2008 10:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 4, 12:01 pm, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So there has been little talk about the strength bid allocation coming
> out of Nationals, I presume the UPA will discuss this once they meet
> in January because of how obviously screwed up the system is. Here is
> why I think allocating the strength bid to the Central is not
> consistent with the rules/goal of the bid...
>
> At the basic level the rule states that "the worst finishing teams of
> each Region are compared. The best two finishers are awarded strength
> wildcards."
>
> Great, straightforward stuff. The spirit of the rule is that the best
> two worst finishers determine the strength bids.
>
> A clause in this wording is if a Region has 4 teams in attendance, the
> 3rd and 4th teams participate in the evaluation and that if the third
> and fourth finishers place above all other worst finishers, the two
> strength bids are awarded to that region. Great, that makes sense too
> - its consistent with the idea that the worst finishers determine the
> bid allocation.
>
> But, then there's the next rule about Regions with 3 finishers... "If
> a Region has exactly 3 teams in attendance at Nationals and all 3
> place above the 2nd place finishing teams from all the other Regions,
> then that Region wins both strength wildcards."
>
> I dont understand this rule, it seems in conflict with the spirit of
> the strength bid spirit. If a region has 4 teams, 3 & 4 have to
> finish ahead of the *worst* teams from other regions, but if it has 3,
> 2&3 have to finish above all the second place teams instead of the
> worst teams? Why make it harder for a 3 team region to have both
> wildcards than a 4 team region? If, as it happened this year, that
> another region has 2 very good teams and 1 or 2 second-tier teams,
> what is the purpose of requiring the bottom finishers determining the
> strength wildcard have to beat those better two teams? Requiring this
> allows this situation where the second and third best teams from a
> region can place highly but lose the second strength bid to a another
> region because of some unreleated/arbitrary performance.
>
> In this case, Ring had no stake in the strength bid outcome and a lost
> to GOAT to award the strength wildcard to a region who's best team
> finished lower than the worst team from the NW. Further, both NW
> teams beat the NE #2 team but could not defend the 4th strength bid
> because the tournament format dictated the GOAT/Ring matchup rather
> than a game with an interested party. I think its clear that awarding
> the second strength bid to the central is against the spirit of the
> strength bid and that the NW should have been allowed to play for it
> rather than have it lost for them by an un-invested team playing with
> no real stake in the outcome. Unless someone can present a compelling
> case for keeping it which I have not considered, I believe the correct
> thing for the UPA to do is to eliminate the over-complicated and
> inconsistent rule about the second place teams.
>
> I'd further suggest the UPA revamp the system for bids and Nationals
> qualifications altogether, by instituting an elite club division and
> awarding bids to nationals based on regular season results, but that
> is the subject of another post.

That sounds well-reasoned, though I haven't gone through the bid
allocation myself in such detail. Probably worth submitting a
proposal for a change: http://www.upa.org/upa/board/proposal
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5143 is a reply to message #5139] Tue, 04 November 2008 10:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 4, 1:16 pm, colinmcintyre <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:01 pm, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > So there has been little talk about the strength bid allocation coming
> > out of Nationals, I presume the UPA will discuss this once they meet
> > in January because of how obviously screwed up the system is.  Here is
> > why I think allocating the strength bid to the Central is not
> > consistent with the rules/goal of the bid...
>
> > At the basic level the rule states that "the worst finishing teams of
> > each Region are compared.  The best two finishers are awarded strength
> > wildcards."
>
> > Great, straightforward stuff. The spirit of the rule is that the best
> > two worst finishers determine the strength bids.
>
> > A clause in this wording is if a Region has 4 teams in attendance, the
> > 3rd and 4th teams participate in the evaluation and that if the third
> > and fourth finishers place above all other worst finishers, the two
> > strength bids are awarded to that region.  Great, that makes sense too
> > - its consistent with the idea that the worst finishers determine the
> > bid allocation.
>
> > But, then there's the next rule about Regions with 3 finishers... "If
> > a Region has exactly 3 teams in attendance at Nationals and all 3
> > place above the 2nd place finishing teams from all the other Regions,
> > then that Region wins both strength wildcards."
>
> > I dont understand this rule, it seems in conflict with the spirit of
> > the strength bid spirit.  If a region has 4 teams, 3 & 4 have to
> > finish ahead of the *worst* teams from other regions, but if it has 3,
> > 2&3 have to finish above all the second place teams instead of the
> > worst teams?  Why make it harder for a 3 team region to have both
> > wildcards than a 4 team region?  If, as it happened this year, that
> > another region has 2 very good teams and 1 or 2 second-tier teams,
> > what is the purpose of requiring the bottom finishers determining the
> > strength wildcard have to beat those better two teams?  Requiring this
> > allows this situation where the second and third best teams from a
> > region can place highly but lose the second strength bid to a another
> > region because of some unreleated/arbitrary performance.
>
> > In this case, Ring had no stake in the strength bid outcome and a lost
> > to GOAT to award the strength wildcard to a region who's best team
> > finished lower than the worst team from the NW.  Further, both NW
> > teams beat the NE #2 team but could not defend the 4th strength bid
> > because the tournament format dictated the GOAT/Ring matchup rather
> > than a game with an interested party.  I think its clear that awarding
> > the second strength bid to the central is against the spirit of the
> > strength bid and that the NW should have been allowed to play for it
> > rather than have it lost for them by an un-invested team playing with
> > no real stake in the outcome.  Unless someone can present a compelling
> > case for keeping it which I have not considered, I believe the correct
> > thing for the UPA to do is to eliminate the over-complicated and
> > inconsistent rule about the second place teams.
>
> > I'd further suggest the UPA revamp the system for bids and Nationals
> > qualifications altogether, by instituting an elite club division and
> > awarding bids to nationals based on regular season results, but that
> > is the subject of another post.
>
> That sounds well-reasoned, though I haven't gone through the bid
> allocation myself in such detail.  Probably worth submitting a
> proposal for a change:


does this kind of thing really need to be "proposed" though? cant the
upa just wise up and get a fuckin clue?
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5169 is a reply to message #5143] Tue, 04 November 2008 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 4, 1:38 pm, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:

> > That sounds well-reasoned, though I haven't gone through the bid
> > allocation myself in such detail. Probably worth submitting a
> > proposal for a change:
>
> does this kind of thing really need to be "proposed" though? cant the
> upa just wise up and get a fuckin clue?

Does it need to be proposed? Maybe or maybe not. Does it make sense
for the original poster to write up a proposal, given that he's
already gone to the trouble of writing down a reasoned analysis? Sure.
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5171 is a reply to message #5169] Tue, 04 November 2008 12:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jacob
Messages: 576
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
As the original poster (and I'm sure others have) suggested, what
about when team kicks ass at elite tournaments all year long, they
qualify for nationals without going to regionals? This would make the
regular tournaments a lot more exciting, and would slightly increase
the quality of teams at nationals.

The current format essentially treats all team as "wildcard" playoff
teams.
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5187 is a reply to message #5171] Tue, 04 November 2008 14:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Keith.Larsen.TX
Messages: 41
Registered: September 2008
Member
College:
8 Regions = 2 bids per region. Period.

Club:
6 Regions = 2 Bids per region (12 of 16)
2 Strength = [I agree with the above proposal]
0 Size bids = who cares if you have a lot of teams, we only want to
2-3 best anyways
0 growth bids = it is a joke to think UPA cares about growth anywhere
but in the youth division
2 Bids = Take the Top 5 teams from each region and subtract the 14
teams that qualified at regionals and have a 2nd Chance qualifier
tournament (30 - 14 = 16 teams)

Now a strong region can qualify 5 teams, thats 2 auto, 1 strength, and
4th/5th in the region finishing 1/2 at the 2nd chance qualifier or 2
auto, 2 strength and 5th place finishing 1st or 2nd at 2nd chance
qualifier.

Only having to finish 5th at regionals promotes mid-level teams
attending regionals with a shot at making the 2nd change qualifier.

(Note: You could even make this more complicated and give an anti-
wildcard to regionals that don't have 14 teams, with allocation of the
remaining spots just like the Masters division.)
-Keith
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5198 is a reply to message #5126] Tue, 04 November 2008 16:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akira
Messages: 17
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
Hey Dutchy,

I'm just guessing, but since no more knowledgeable voices have chimed
in here I'll take a swing at what I think is the guiding philosophy
behind your area of objection..

1. 'Strength' wildcard is probably something of a misnomer. It's more
like the 'anti-you-suck' wildcard. I think this is well understood and
not the point of your post.

2. There are 6 regions. Each region receives a minimum of 2 bids.
There are 4 wildcards - 2 strength, 1 growth, 1 size. A region cannot
receive more than 2 wildcards, so the range of bids per region is
fixed at 2 to 4.

3. If a region qualifies 4 teams to the Club Championships, then it is
implied that there can be 1 other region with 4 teams and 4 other
regions each with 2, or 2 other regions with 3 teams and 3 other
regions with 2 team each.

4. If a region qualifies 3 teams to the Club Championships, then it is
implied that there can be 1 other region with 4 teams, 1 other region
with 3, and 3 other regions with 2, or 3 other regions with 3 teams,
and 2 regions with 2 teams each.


> A clause in this wording is if a Region has 4 teams in attendance, the
> 3rd and 4th teams participate in the evaluation and that if the third
> and fourth finishers place above all other worst finishers, the twostrengthbids are awarded to that region.

I think the point here (below) is pretty straightforward, but I'll
inject an example if it helps..

Suppose in a given year (like, 2007) a region (say, the NW) qualifies
4 teams to the Club Championships (they did - Sockeye, Jam, Furious,
Rhino). It doesn't matter how or through what wildcards the 4 teams
qualified, just that the NW brought 4 teams. That implies that of the
'worsts' from the other regions there would be a 4th (and 3rd) from 1
other region and 2nds from the other 4 regions or a 3rd from 2 other
regions and 2nds from 3 other regions (the 2007 case).

If the NW 'worst' (4th) finisher (Rhino), (and by implication the NW
'next to worst' (3rd) finisher (Furious)) finished ahead of a 4th from
another region as well as 4 2nds from other regions (not 2007), or
ahead of 2 3rds from other regions and 3 2nds from other regions (they
didn't), how would it be fair for them to lose their spot at the
following year's Club Championships?

*Note - it's not 'their' spot per se, but this is similar to the
school of thought that provides that since in 2008 Jam (NW) won and
Ironside (NE) was the runner-up, then you can seed 2009's tournament
starting with NW1, NE1, etc. and come out ok. Not necessarily Jam and
Ironside, but whoever comes out as tops from those two regions in
2009.

In this case we have a direct, demonstrated result that NW4 is better
than other regions' 4ths and 2nds (and by implication other regions'
5ths, 6ths, 3rds, 4ths, etc.), or 3rds and 2nds (and by implication
other regions' 4ths, 5ths, 3rds, 4ths, etc.). So the region would get
both strength bids, the spot for NW3 and NW4.


> But, then there's the next rule about Regions with 3 finishers... "If
> a Region has exactly 3 teams in attendance at Nationals and all 3
> place above the 2nd place finishing teams from all the other Regions,
> then that Region wins bothstrengthwildcards."

This case is a little bit different. There seems to be no argument
that if a 3rd from a region does well enough that that region gets one
of the strength wildcards for the following year. But the discussion
here relates to whether that region should receive BOTH strength
wildcards.

If a region has 3 teams, then the 'worsts' from other regions are
either a
4th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd
or
3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd

A region would get a strength wildcard if their 3rd team finished
ahead of the other 5 region's 2nds, 3rds, and 4ths. That's pretty
clear.

The second strength wildcard here would represent not NW3 who is
putting up results, but NW4 who is not even present at that year's
Club Championships. This is the key. And you seem to be asking that an
inference be made about potential NW4's results vs. the other regions'
2nds, 3rds, and 4ths who are at the Club Championships and other
regions' 3rds and 4ths who are not at the Club Championships just as
NW4 is not at the Club Championships.

That I think is the difference / philosophy around how this rule has
been instituted. The standard to make that inference is very high
(thus a region's 3rd must place ahead of all other regions' 2nds to
bring it's own region's 4th into play -- the second strength
wildcard).

That all said, I have no idea what has actually happened, what will
happen, or how things might go in the future.

-akira
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5204 is a reply to message #5171] Tue, 04 November 2008 17:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 4, 3:30 pm, jacob <jacobsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As the original poster (and I'm sure others have) suggested, what
> about when team kicks ass at elite tournaments all year long, they
> qualify for nationals without going to regionals?  This would make the
> regular tournaments a lot more exciting, and would slightly increase
> the quality of teams at nationals.
>
> The current format essentially treats all team as "wildcard" playoff
> teams.

Ok. So submit a proposal that lays out a system for this that is
fairer than the current system. Or, if it isn't clearly fairer,
identify certain policy goals of the current system, which you don't
think are of value and therefore are ignoring.
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5241 is a reply to message #5187] Wed, 05 November 2008 06:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alan Hoyle
Messages: 51
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:03:33, Keith.Larsen.TX@gmail.com wrote:
> College:
> 8 Regions = 2 bids per region. Period.

I disagree: redraw to 7 regions, have 1 strength WC and 1 rotating
wildcard. Allocate the rotating WC to the region that least-recently
received a wild card of either sort. Give the third place team a
chance every once in a while.

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - alanh@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5329 is a reply to message #5134] Wed, 05 November 2008 14:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Messages: 56
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Nov 4, 12:27 pm, Neva Cherniavsky <ncher...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:01 am, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So there has been little talk about the strength bid allocation coming
> > out of Nationals, I presume the UPA will discuss this once they meet
> > in January because of how obviously screwed up the system is.  Here is
> > why I think allocating the strength bid to the Central is not
> > consistent with the rules/goal of the bid...
>
> > At the basic level the rule states that "the worst finishing teams of
> > each Region are compared.  The best two finishers are awarded strength
> > wildcards."
>
> > Great, straightforward stuff. The spirit of the rule is that the best
> > two worst finishers determine the strength bids.
>
> > A clause in this wording is if a Region has 4 teams in attendance, the
> > 3rd and 4th teams participate in the evaluation and that if the third
> > and fourth finishers place above all other worst finishers, the two
> > strength bids are awarded to that region.  Great, that makes sense too
> > - its consistent with the idea that the worst finishers determine the
> > bid allocation.
>
> > But, then there's the next rule about Regions with 3 finishers... "If
> > a Region has exactly 3 teams in attendance at Nationals and all 3
> > place above the 2nd place finishing teams from all the other Regions,
> > then that Region wins both strength wildcards."
>
> > I dont understand this rule, it seems in conflict with the spirit of
> > the strength bid spirit.  If a region has 4 teams, 3 & 4 have to
> > finish ahead of the *worst* teams from other regions, but if it has 3,
> > 2&3 have to finish above all the second place teams instead of the
> > worst teams?  Why make it harder for a 3 team region to have both
> > wildcards than a 4 team region?  If, as it happened this year, that
> > another region has 2 very good teams and 1 or 2 second-tier teams,
> > what is the purpose of requiring the bottom finishers determining the
> > strength wildcard have to beat those better two teams?  Requiring this
> > allows this situation where the second and third best teams from a
> > region can place highly but lose the second strength bid to a another
> > region because of some unreleated/arbitrary performance.
>
> > In this case, Ring had no stake in the strength bid outcome and a lost
> > to GOAT to award the strength wildcard to a region who's best team
> > finished lower than the worst team from the NW.  Further, both NW
> > teams beat the NE #2 team but could not defend the 4th strength bid
> > because the tournament format dictated the GOAT/Ring matchup rather
> > than a game with an interested party.  I think its clear that awarding
> > the second strength bid to the central is against the spirit of the
> > strength bid and that the NW should have been allowed to play for it
> > rather than have it lost for them by an un-invested team playing with
> > no real stake in the outcome.  Unless someone can present a compelling
> > case for keeping it which I have not considered, I believe the correct
> > thing for the UPA to do is to eliminate the over-complicated and
> > inconsistent rule about the second place teams.
>
> > I'd further suggest the UPA revamp the system for bids and Nationals
> > qualifications altogether, by instituting an elite club division and
> > awarding bids to nationals based on regular season results, but that
> > is the subject of another post.
>
> This is why the NW women are only getting the second strength bid this
> year, despite a Fury-Riot finals for the past 3 years and 3 teams in
> quarterfinals last year.  Last year, the NW got one strength bid and
> NE the other, because both regions had 3 teams in the
> quarterfinals...but NE actually had four teams at Nationals, and that
> fourth team finished 16th.

Come on. Last year, Capitals earned the bid that got them back to
nationals by finishing *ahead of* the 3rd team from the NW. Ambush
didn't earn a strength bid last year, and attended this year based on
the size bid. I fail to see why the fact that the NE earned a size
bid should mean that their third team shouldn't be in the running to
maintain their own bid to nationals.

sam th
Re: Strength bid objection [message #5341 is a reply to message #5329] Wed, 05 November 2008 15:17 Go to previous message
Gambler
Messages: 60
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Nov 5, 2:22 pm, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:27 pm, Neva Cherniavsky <ncher...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 9:01 am, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > So there has been little talk about the strength bid allocation coming
> > > out of Nationals, I presume the UPA will discuss this once they meet
> > > in January because of how obviously screwed up the system is.  Here is
> > > why I think allocating the strength bid to the Central is not
> > > consistent with the rules/goal of the bid...
>
> > > At the basic level the rule states that "the worst finishing teams of
> > > each Region are compared.  The best two finishers are awarded strength
> > > wildcards."
>
> > > Great, straightforward stuff. The spirit of the rule is that the best
> > > two worst finishers determine the strength bids.
>
> > > A clause in this wording is if a Region has 4 teams in attendance, the
> > > 3rd and 4th teams participate in the evaluation and that if the third
> > > and fourth finishers place above all other worst finishers, the two
> > > strength bids are awarded to that region.  Great, that makes sense too
> > > - its consistent with the idea that the worst finishers determine the
> > > bid allocation.
>
> > > But, then there's the next rule about Regions with 3 finishers... "If
> > > a Region has exactly 3 teams in attendance at Nationals and all 3
> > > place above the 2nd place finishing teams from all the other Regions,
> > > then that Region wins both strength wildcards."
>
> > This is why the NW women are only getting the second strength bid this
> > year, despite a Fury-Riot finals for the past 3 years and 3 teams in
> > quarterfinals last year.  Last year, the NW got one strength bid and
> > NE the other, because both regions had 3 teams in the
> > quarterfinals...but NE actually had four teams at Nationals, and that
> > fourth team finished 16th.
>
> Come on.  Last year, Capitals earned the bid that got them back to
> nationals by finishing *ahead of* the 3rd team from the NW.  Ambush
> didn't earn a strength bid last year, and attended this year based on
> the size bid.  I fail to see why the fact that the NE earned a size
> bid should mean that their third team shouldn't be in the running to
> maintain their own bid to nationals.
>
> sam th

Actually, the placement game between the Capitals and ZG didn't matter
last year at all. No matter which team won, they would have still
finished ahead of all the other region's worse place regional
finishers. Even if ZG won the game, the NW would have still only
earned 1 strength bid because the NE had two teams in semis. But ZG
got to play Brute Squad in quarters, so at least they had their chance
to make semis and earn the NW 2 strength bids.
Previous Topic:08 nationals photos
Next Topic:Feedback on Live-Streaming
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Jan 17 21:26:07 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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