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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Rankings
Rankings [message #56685] Tue, 06 April 2010 16:21 Go to next message
Fuse
Messages: 9
Registered: May 2009
Junior Member
Anyone know when the rankings are going up? They were supposed to be
posted today.
Re: Rankings [message #56686 is a reply to message #56685] Tue, 06 April 2010 16:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
chart589
Messages: 91
Registered: November 2009
Location: chuckteezy
Member
On Apr 6, 7:21 pm, Fuse <joshuasmand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone know when the rankings are going up? They were supposed to be
> posted today.

yeah, wondering the same thing... they were supposed to be up a week
ago... then were supposed to be up today... then i lost all faith......
Re: Rankings [message #56690 is a reply to message #56686] Tue, 06 April 2010 17:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Looking at score reporter:

Cal is ineligible.
Davis doesn't have enough sanctioned games.
Western Washington never submitted any rosters (or is ineligible).
UCSB had two tournaments with roster violations.
UNCW was improperly rostered at Easterns.
UPenn is ineligible.
Luther is ineligible.

Mayhem! Chaos!
Re: Rankings [message #56691 is a reply to message #56690] Tue, 06 April 2010 17:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Apr 6, 5:36 pm, Ryan Thompson <ryan3thomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking at score reporter:
>
> Cal is ineligible.
> Davis doesn't have enough sanctioned games.
> Western Washington never submitted any rosters (or is ineligible).
> UCSB had two tournaments with roster violations.
> UNCW was improperly rostered at Easterns.
> UPenn is ineligible.
> Luther is ineligible.
>
> Mayhem! Chaos!

Also Illinois, and apparently Notre Dame's games against Notre Dame
Alumni and South Bend are still marked as counting for the college
series.
Re: Rankings [message #56692 is a reply to message #56690] Tue, 06 April 2010 17:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Apr 6, 5:36 pm, Ryan Thompson <ryan3thomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking at score reporter:
>
> Cal is ineligible.
> Davis doesn't have enough sanctioned games.
> Western Washington never submitted any rosters (or is ineligible).
> UCSB had two tournaments with roster violations.
> UNCW was improperly rostered at Easterns.
> UPenn is ineligible.
> Luther is ineligible.
>
> Mayhem! Chaos!

Note: by ineligible, I mean played with ineligible/poorly rostered
players during the year, not ineligible for the series.
Re: Rankings [message #56693 is a reply to message #56692] Tue, 06 April 2010 17:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wagenwheel
Messages: 323
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Apr 6, 8:39 pm, Ryan Thompson <ryan3thomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:36 pm, Ryan Thompson <ryan3thomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Looking at score reporter:
>
> > Cal is ineligible.
> > Davis doesn't have enough sanctioned games.
> > Western Washington never submitted any rosters (or is ineligible).
> > UCSB had two tournaments with roster violations.
> > UNCW was improperly rostered at Easterns.
> > UPenn is ineligible.
> > Luther is ineligible.
>
> > Mayhem! Chaos!
>
> Note: by ineligible, I mean played with ineligible/poorly rostered
> players during the year, not ineligible for the series.

Here is what matters. Get your roster verified by Registrar and
submitted in time. Win Sectionals, qualify in top two at regionals,
go to Nationals. Why is it so complicated? Can someone please
explain to me the value of sanctioned v. non-sanctioned. Well-
rostered v. Poorly rostered.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if a team that has never played in a
tournament completes a roster and submits in a timely manner to UPA
and is approved in time for "The Series" are they not allowed to
participate for a spot in the National Tournament? Honestly, just
look at where the rankings got Florida last year.

Thanks in advance for enabling my ignorance by providing an
explanation.
Re: Rankings [message #56694 is a reply to message #56685] Tue, 06 April 2010 17:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> Anyone know when the rankings are going up? They were supposed to be
> posted today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---i've only seen one rankings announcement this spring here on
rsd.....have i been missing them?
Re: Rankings [message #56695 is a reply to message #56693] Tue, 06 April 2010 17:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
fjrhox
Messages: 21
Registered: March 2010
Junior Member
All teams that have submitted an approved roster are able to participate in the College Series. The season rankings only affect bid allocation (two regionals wildcards, two team wildcards).

Yes, Wagenwheel, you are correct. If you are a region that is fortunate enough to get more bids, great. If not, go finish in the top two.
Re: Rankings [message #56697 is a reply to message #56694] Tue, 06 April 2010 18:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Naji
Messages: 100
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
The rankings of teams with their 10 sanctioned games are critical
because section strength will effect the number of bids each section
gets to regionals. With several sectionals being hosted this week, it
is making it hard on the coordinators to setup their sunday brackets
without knowing what sort of bracket and bids to allocate.
Re: Rankings [message #56700 is a reply to message #56695] Tue, 06 April 2010 18:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kevin
Messages: 28
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
for all those national caliber teams out there rankings mean nothing,
but as a player on a lower level team trying to qualify for regionals,
it's annoying to know that we are 4 days before sectionals and don't
even have the schedule because the UPA doesn't have their stuff
together.
Re: Rankings [message #56703 is a reply to message #56700] Tue, 06 April 2010 19:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> it's annoying to know that we are 4 days before sectionals and don't
> even have the schedule because the UPA doesn't have their stuff
> together.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---there has GOT to be a better way........huhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Re: Rankings [message #56706 is a reply to message #56700] Tue, 06 April 2010 19:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
chart589
Messages: 91
Registered: November 2009
Location: chuckteezy
Member
the last sanctioned tournaments were not this past weekend... but 2
weekends ago... dot dot dot times 100 (that's 100 of these guys: ...),
that's a lot of implied frustration and bewilderment
Re: Rankings [message #56707 is a reply to message #56690] Tue, 06 April 2010 20:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
specific question for each team......please answer!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


> Cal is ineligible.

---why? ineligible to compete in the series?
~~~~~~~~~~~
> Davis doesn't have enough sanctioned games.

---enough for what?
~~~~~~~~~~~
> Western Washington never submitted any rosters (or is ineligible).

---can't play at all in the series?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
> UCSB had two tournaments with roster violations.

---what does that mean for UCSB?
~~~~~~~~~~~
> UNCW was improperly rostered at Easterns.

--how so i wonder?....for their own event?
what does that mean for them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> UPenn is ineligible.

---to play at all in the series?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Luther is ineligible.

---from nationals last year, luther?
ineligible to play in the series at all?????
Re: Rankings [message #56708 is a reply to message #56692] Tue, 06 April 2010 20:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> Note: by ineligible, I mean played with ineligible/poorly rostered
> players during the year, not ineligible for the series.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---jeeze....well...screwing up a roster spot is a world of difference
from an individual player NOT being eligible, right?
the TEAMS are still eligible for the series....right?
Re: Rankings [message #56710 is a reply to message #56690] Tue, 06 April 2010 20:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> Cal is ineligible.
> Davis doesn't have enough sanctioned games.
> Western Washington never submitted any rosters (or is ineligible).
> UCSB had two tournaments with roster violations.
> UNCW was improperly rostered at Easterns.
> UPenn is ineligible.
> Luther is ineligible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---if these teams can play in the series....why even post something
like this?
can they play in the series?
Re: Rankings [message #56720 is a reply to message #56710] Wed, 07 April 2010 05:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ÜBER
Messages: 82
Registered: September 2008
Location: Iowa City/ Chicago Suburb...
Member
"---if these teams can play in the series....why even post something
like this?
can they play in the series?"

Because it drastically affects bids to nationals
Re: Rankings [message #56726 is a reply to message #56720] Wed, 07 April 2010 06:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> "---if these teams can play in the series....why even post
> something
> like this?
> can they play in the series?"
>
> Because it drastically affects bids to nationals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---posting that, for instance, "luther is ineligible" is vastly
different than, 'because luther failed to submit a roster on time to
some tournament somewhere, now we only get 3 bids to regionals from
our section instead of 4"......right?
--or we only get 2 bids instead of 3 to nationals.

i mean........if ALLLLLLLL the teams that didn't send proper paper
work on time, maybe the bids would work out exactly as they
have.......or will....
Re: Rankings [message #56770 is a reply to message #56710] Wed, 07 April 2010 09:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Angry Penguin
Messages: 7
Registered: February 2010
Junior Member
On Apr 6, 8:23 pm, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Cal is ineligible.
> > Davis doesn't have enough sanctioned games.
> > Western Washington never submitted any rosters (or is ineligible).
> > UCSB had two tournaments with roster violations.
> > UNCW was improperly rostered at Easterns.
> > UPenn is ineligible.
> > Luther is ineligible.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ---if these teams can play in the series....why even post something
> like this?
> can they play in the series?

The DIII teams that had this happen are literally fucked by the DIII
natties 10 game requirement for bids.
Re: Rankings [message #56773 is a reply to message #56770] Wed, 07 April 2010 09:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Vancer
Messages: 184
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
"The DIII teams that had this happen are literally fucked by the DIII
natties 10 game requirement for bids."

"literally"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
Re: Rankings [message #56778 is a reply to message #56770] Wed, 07 April 2010 10:18 Go to previous message
bslade86
Messages: 357
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Penguin, not unless they themselves were literally ineligible at one (or more) tournaments.
Previous Topic:Any pickup/throwing in SW Connecticut
Next Topic:philly/jerz/de tryouts
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Feb 19 23:11:57 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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