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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Rankings as of April 8th
Rankings as of April 8th [message #56931] Thu, 08 April 2010 09:37 Go to next message
bwn
Messages: 7
Registered: May 2009
Junior Member
http://scores.upa.org/scores/#college-open/Rankings

"Following the posting of the 2010 UPA College Regular Season Rankings
earlier this week, further analysis has revealed an inaccuracy which
has impacted the open division rankings. As a result, the regional and
national bid allocations have been revised for the open division. In
the interest of fairness to all teams and athletes involved, the UPA
has issued the following official and final rankings. We regret any
inconvenience this may have caused, however we worked very hard to
ensure the accuracy of our calculations."

Hey UPA, what inaccuracy was made?

Also, things still don't really make sense. For example, UCLA at 8-8
securing a bid over ND at 10-1. Luther at 16 securing another bid for
the central region, despite not beating anyone in the top 30. Tufts at
number 8 at 8-1, yet not grayed out for not playing 10 games that
count.

Anyone have an explanation that makes sense?
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56932 is a reply to message #56931] Thu, 08 April 2010 09:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Apr 8, 9:37 am, bwn <bwn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://scores.upa.org/scores/#college-open/Rankings
>
> "Following the posting of the 2010 UPA College Regular Season Rankings
> earlier this week, further analysis has revealed an inaccuracy which
> has impacted the open division rankings. As a result, the regional and
> national bid allocations have been revised for the open division. In
> the interest of fairness to all teams and athletes involved, the UPA
> has issued the following official and final rankings. We regret any
> inconvenience this may have caused, however we worked very hard to
> ensure the accuracy of our calculations."
>
> Hey UPA, what inaccuracy was made?
>
> Also, things still don't really make sense.  For example, UCLA at 8-8
> securing a bid over ND at 10-1.  Luther at 16 securing another bid for
> the central region, despite not beating anyone in the top 30. Tufts at
> number 8 at 8-1, yet not grayed out for not playing 10 games that
> count.
>
> Anyone have an explanation that makes sense?

Luther's regular season results were DQ'ed in the initial posting,
then validated today. Probably wrongly DQ'ed, which gives Central 4
bids and takes one away from GL. UCLA gets a bid over ND because they
are ranked higher. Tufts is not grayed out because they played more
than 10 games at sanctioned tournaments with a valid roster, despite
their opponents not having valid rosters.

http://www.upa.org/college/Top25/rank_alg.shtml
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56936 is a reply to message #56932] Thu, 08 April 2010 10:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RSmith
Messages: 13
Registered: April 2010
Junior Member
On Apr 8, 12:45 pm, Ryan Thompson <ryan3thomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 9:37 am, bwn <bwn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://scores.upa.org/scores/#college-open/Rankings
>
> > "Following the posting of the 2010 UPA College Regular Season Rankings
> > earlier this week, further analysis has revealed an inaccuracy which
> > has impacted the open division rankings. As a result, the regional and
> > national bid allocations have been revised for the open division. In
> > the interest of fairness to all teams and athletes involved, the UPA
> > has issued the following official and final rankings. We regret any
> > inconvenience this may have caused, however we worked very hard to
> > ensure the accuracy of our calculations."
>
> > Hey UPA, what inaccuracy was made?
>
> > Also, things still don't really make sense.  For example, UCLA at 8-8
> > securing a bid over ND at 10-1.  Luther at 16 securing another bid for
> > the central region, despite not beating anyone in the top 30. Tufts at
> > number 8 at 8-1, yet not grayed out for not playing 10 games that
> > count.
>
> > Anyone have an explanation that makes sense?
>
> Luther's regular season results were DQ'ed in the initial posting,
> then validated today. Probably wrongly DQ'ed, which gives Central 4
> bids and takes one away from GL. UCLA gets a bid over ND because they
> are ranked higher. Tufts is not grayed out because they played more
> than 10 games at sanctioned tournaments with a valid roster, despite
> their opponents not having valid rosters.
>
> http://www.upa.org/college/Top25/rank_alg.shtml- Hide quoted text -
>
---------------------------------------------

-- Like I said before, the sanctioning, ranking, alogrithim shit is a
bunch of UPA gobblie goop!
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56938 is a reply to message #56932] Thu, 08 April 2010 10:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
huckbucket
Messages: 82
Registered: December 2009
Member
On Apr 8, 12:45 pm, Ryan Thompson <ryan3thomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 9:37 am, bwn <bwn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://scores.upa.org/scores/#college-open/Rankings
>
> > "Following the posting of the 2010 UPA College Regular Season Rankings
> > earlier this week, further analysis has revealed an inaccuracy which
> > has impacted the open division rankings. As a result, the regional and
> > national bid allocations have been revised for the open division. In
> > the interest of fairness to all teams and athletes involved, the UPA
> > has issued the following official and final rankings. We regret any
> > inconvenience this may have caused, however we worked very hard to
> > ensure the accuracy of our calculations."
>
> > Hey UPA, what inaccuracy was made?
>
> > Also, things still don't really make sense.  For example, UCLA at 8-8
> > securing a bid over ND at 10-1.  Luther at 16 securing another bid for
> > the central region, despite not beating anyone in the top 30. Tufts at
> > number 8 at 8-1, yet not grayed out for not playing 10 games that
> > count.
>
> > Anyone have an explanation that makes sense?
>
> Luther's regular season results were DQ'ed in the initial posting,
> then validated today. Probably wrongly DQ'ed, which gives Central 4
> bids and takes one away from GL. UCLA gets a bid over ND because they
> are ranked higher. Tufts is not grayed out because they played more
> than 10 games at sanctioned tournaments with a valid roster, despite
> their opponents not having valid rosters.
>
> http://www.upa.org/college/Top25/rank_alg.shtml

so where does illinois fit in all of this? they had a fairly
impressive season going 12-6 in sanctioned tournaments with wins over
ND, Florida, UCLA, NC state... it looks as if they woul have quite a
high ranking, possibly above UCLA and luther, which would give a bid
back to GL...

anyone know what happened with them?
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56940 is a reply to message #56938] Thu, 08 April 2010 10:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kempite35
Messages: 54
Registered: February 2009
Member
Their roster that they submitted for each and every tournament this year did not match the roster that they submitted to the UPA for sectionals. So all of their games did not count. So they cost their region a bid to nationals, unless they played the season with ringers.






so where does illinois fit in all of this? they had a fairly
impressive season going 12-6 in sanctioned tournaments with wins over
ND, Florida, UCLA, NC state... it looks as if they woul have quite a
high ranking, possibly above UCLA and luther, which would give a bid
back to GL...

anyone know what happened with them?
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56942 is a reply to message #56936] Thu, 08 April 2010 11:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BMaster
Messages: 33
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Apr 8, 12:26 pm, RSmith <ricksmith1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> -- Like I said before, the sanctioning, ranking, alogrithim shit is a
> bunch of UPA gobblie goop!

A well thought out and articulated criticism.

Its a shame to see the GL get pwnd like that, but it might be better
than being bundled with NE and ME as the lame regions at nationals.

Go Central! Put all 4 teams in Semis!
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56943 is a reply to message #56940] Thu, 08 April 2010 11:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
huckbucket
Messages: 82
Registered: December 2009
Member
On Apr 8, 1:56 pm, kempite35 <kempit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Their roster that they submitted for each and every
> tournament this year did not match the roster that they
> submitted to the UPA for sectionals.  So all of their games
> did not count.  So they cost their region a bid to
> nationals, unless they played the season with ringers.
>
> so where does illinois fit in all of this? they had a
> fairly
> impressive season going 12-6 in sanctioned tournaments with
> wins over
> ND, Florida, UCLA, NC state... it looks as if they woul have
> quite a
> high ranking, possibly above UCLA and luther, which would
> give a bid
> back to GL...
>
> anyone know what happened with them?
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

this redo really makes me doubt if all teams are being held to the
same standards and if everything if being looked into properly...
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56947 is a reply to message #56943] Thu, 08 April 2010 11:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grushk
Messages: 29
Registered: December 2008
Junior Member
My team was one of the teams that failed the "roster eligibility comparison" and is not ranked. After looking into it we have a couple people listed as "Not Cleared/Complete" on the Sectionals roster and several people not yet listed there. After talking to my captains and the people involved they all say they did submit their forms, but the UPA apparently hasn't processed them yet. I thought todays re-ranking would address it, but I guess my team is too low on the pecking order. Have any other teams experienced the same problem and/or seen it corrected today?

Also, does anyone know the status of Cal-A? They are ranked 8th on RRI, which should be high enough to give the NW a strength bid if they were ranked.
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56948 is a reply to message #56940] Thu, 08 April 2010 11:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
alien
Messages: 3
Registered: May 2009
Junior Member
On Apr 8, 12:56 pm, kempite35 <kempit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Their roster that they submitted for each and every
> tournament this year did not match the roster that they
> submitted to the UPA for sectionals.  So all of their games
> did not count.  So they cost their region a bid to
> nationals, unless they played the season with ringers.
>
> so where does illinois fit in all of this? they had a
> fairly
> impressive season going 12-6 in sanctioned tournaments with
> wins over
> ND, Florida, UCLA, NC state... it looks as if they woul have
> quite a
> high ranking, possibly above UCLA and luther, which would
> give a bid
> back to GL...
>
> anyone know what happened with them?
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

As previously stated, our regular season roster does not match our
sectionals roster. We had a player drop from the team shortly after
Centex due to school conflicts who did not sign a roster (A or B) for
submission to the registrar. As a result, the player's (a freshman)
eligibility could not be verified, and the UPA was forced to treat him
as an ineligible player. Because of this, our regular season results
were discounted. I believe many of the teams with ineligible results
encountered similar situations.

We were informed of this incongruity by the UPA on Thursday April 1,
with the opportunity to fix it by Monday April 5. As I'm sure is the
case with many schools, our registrar does not work that quickly. Of
course, the UPA is not responsible for informing us of roster
mistakes, so the fault is solely our own. We did not foresee the
conflict that could arise from one player dropping from the team.

While this negatively affected our (Central Plains) number of bids
from sectionals to regionals, bids to nationals were likely
unaffected. As of the last ranking that we were a part of, I believe
we were ranked behind Michigan State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Ohio
State. I don't think we had a significant influence on region
strength either.

I am flattered that somebody thinks we should have a high ranking
though :-)

Austin Lien
Illinois #14
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56950 is a reply to message #56948] Thu, 08 April 2010 11:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Apr 8, 11:42 am, alien <kidalien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 12:56 pm, kempite35 <kempit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Their roster that they submitted for each and every
> > tournament this year did not match the roster that they
> > submitted to the UPA for sectionals.  So all of their games
> > did not count.  So they cost their region a bid to
> > nationals, unless they played the season with ringers.
>
> > so where does illinois fit in all of this? they had a
> > fairly
> > impressive season going 12-6 in sanctioned tournaments with
> > wins over
> > ND, Florida, UCLA, NC state... it looks as if they woul have
> > quite a
> > high ranking, possibly above UCLA and luther, which would
> > give a bid
> > back to GL...
>
> > anyone know what happened with them?
> > --
> > Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
>
> As previously stated, our regular season roster does not match our
> sectionals roster.  We had a player drop from the team shortly after
> Centex due to school conflicts who did not sign a roster (A or B) for
> submission to the registrar.  As a result, the player's (a freshman)
> eligibility could not be verified, and the UPA was forced to treat him
> as an ineligible player.  Because of this, our regular season results
> were discounted.  I believe many of the teams with ineligible results
> encountered similar situations.
>
> We were informed of this incongruity by the UPA on Thursday April 1,
> with the opportunity to fix it by Monday April 5.  As I'm sure is the
> case with many schools, our registrar does not work that quickly.  Of
> course, the UPA is not responsible for informing us of roster
> mistakes, so the fault is solely our own.  We did not foresee the
> conflict that could arise from one player dropping from the team.
>
> While this negatively affected our (Central Plains) number of bids
> from sectionals to regionals, bids to nationals were likely
> unaffected.  As of the last ranking that we were a part of, I believe
> we were ranked behind Michigan State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Ohio
> State.  I don't think we had a significant influence on region
> strength either.
>
> I am flattered that somebody thinks we should have a high ranking
> though :-)
>
> Austin Lien
> Illinois #14

At the online captains meeting in October, a lot of questions were
asked about what happens when people quit the team, since I assume
that a lot of teams will experience at least one drop per season. We
made sure to track down anyone who had been on our roster, got their
enrollment certificate (our registrar doesn't sign rosters), and add
them to the sectionals roster. While this was implicitly stated on the
UPA website, I think it would have been helpful to have some sort of
flowchart or explicit instructions for how to keep your rosters valid
after players quit the team (taking a quarter/semester off from school
is more difficult).
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56965 is a reply to message #56947] Thu, 08 April 2010 13:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aghesquiere
Messages: 36
Registered: October 2008
Member
Cal, like many other teams it seems, had its regular season results
declared ineligible because one of our players on the regular season
roster will not be allowed to compete in the series. In our case this
is due to an unforeseen problem with a recent change in academic
status (that our player was unaware of).

Speaking for myself and not the Cal team, this is frustrating because
we competed with what we thought was our Series roster and had no
knowledge of this impending problem. I suggest the UPA implement some
roster approval process in advance of the regular season next year
that allows teams to show that their regular season roster was
eligible at the time of the competition rather than basing it all on a
single data point at the end of the season when things could have
changed in unforeseeable ways.

At this point we can only do our best during the series and see how
the results come out, which is what we were planning on doing anyway.

On Apr 8, 11:32 am, grush <gru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My team was one of the teams that failed the "roster
> eligibility comparison" and is not ranked. After looking
> into it we have a couple people listed as "Not
> Cleared/Complete" on the Sectionals roster and several
> people not yet listed there. After talking to my captains
> and the people involved they all say they did submit their
> forms, but the UPA apparently hasn't processed them yet. I
> thought todays re-ranking would address it, but I guess my
> team is too low on the pecking order. Have any other teams
> experienced the same problem and/or seen it corrected today?
>
> Also, does anyone know the status of Cal-A? They are ranked
> 8th on RRI, which should be high enough to give the NW a
> strength bid if they were ranked.
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56977 is a reply to message #56936] Thu, 08 April 2010 13:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> -- Like I said before, the sanctioning, ranking, alogrithim shit is a
> bunch of UPA gobblie goop!-

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

---yes.
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56979 is a reply to message #56940] Thu, 08 April 2010 13:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> Their roster that they submitted for each and every
> tournament this year did not match the roster that they
> submitted to the UPA for sectionals.  So all of their games
> did not count.  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---that's crazy......teams change.....college ultimate is in constant
flux......
the rosters ARE going to change from week to week.
these kids aren't on scholarship....
they're joining...and quitting...and returning....
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56981 is a reply to message #56942] Thu, 08 April 2010 13:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> > -- Like I said before, the sanctioning, ranking, alogrithim shit is a
> > bunch of UPA gobblie goop!
>
> A well thought out and articulated criticism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--what?....you're dumbassed reply?
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56983 is a reply to message #56943] Thu, 08 April 2010 13:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> this redo really makes me doubt if all teams are being held to the
> same standards and if everything if being looked into properly...-

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



----makes you DOUBT??????????????
THIS...makes you doubt if the standards for everyone and everything
are equal?
THIS????????
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56986 is a reply to message #56950] Thu, 08 April 2010 14:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> At the online captains meeting in October, a lot of questions were
> asked about what happens when people quit the team, since I assume
> that a lot of teams will experience at least one drop per season. We
> made sure to track down anyone who had been on our roster, got their
> enrollment certificate (our registrar doesn't sign rosters), and add
> them to the sectionals roster.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---so you have to add people to your series roster who aren't playing
in the series.....
....so they are losing eligibility for NOT playing.......and you
probably have to pay their upa dues....despite them not playing?
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56990 is a reply to message #56986] Thu, 08 April 2010 14:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Scapegoatforlife
Messages: 119
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
agerics20 wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 14:00
> At the online captains meeting in October, a lot of questions were
> asked about what happens when people quit the team, since I assume
> that a lot of teams will experience at least one drop per season. We
> made sure to track down anyone who had been on our roster, got their
> enrollment certificate (our registrar doesn't sign rosters), and add
> them to the sectionals roster.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---so you have to add people to your series roster who aren't playing
in the series.....
....so they are losing eligibility for NOT playing.......and you
probably have to pay their upa dues....despite them not playing?


For clarification, if someone was on a roster for a sanctioned event earlier in the season they already had to pay the UPA dues.

In addition, their eligibility starts when they first participate in a sanctioned event, so the clock started the moment they were added to the roster.


Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #56998 is a reply to message #56990] Thu, 08 April 2010 14:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> For clarification, if someone was on a roster for a
> sanctioned event earlier in the season they already had to
> pay the UPA dues.
>
> In addition, their eligibility starts when they first
> participate in a sanctioned event, so the clock started the
> moment they were added to the roster.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---YO!!!!
THAT's a money making scam like CRRRRAAAAAZZZZZZYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #57002 is a reply to message #56965] Thu, 08 April 2010 14:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
donovd
Messages: 241
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Apr 8, 4:15 pm, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Cal, like many other teams it seems, had its regular season results
> declared ineligible because one of our players on the regular season
> roster will not be allowed to compete in the series.  In our case this
> is due to an unforeseen problem with a recent change in academic
> status (that our player was unaware of).
>
> Speaking for myself and not the Cal team, this is frustrating because
> we competed with what we thought was our Series roster and had no
> knowledge of this impending problem.  I suggest the UPA implement some
> roster approval process in advance of the regular season next year
> that allows teams to show that their regular season roster was
> eligible at the time of the competition rather than basing it all on a
> single data point at the end of the season when things could have
> changed in unforeseeable ways.
>
> At this point we can only do our best during the series and see how
> the results come out, which is what we were planning on doing anyway.
>
> On Apr 8, 11:32 am, grush <gru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My team was one of the teams that failed the "roster
> > eligibility comparison" and is not ranked. After looking
> > into it we have a couple people listed as "Not
> > Cleared/Complete" on the Sectionals roster and several
> > people not yet listed there. After talking to my captains
> > and the people involved they all say they did submit their
> > forms, but the UPA apparently hasn't processed them yet. I
> > thought todays re-ranking would address it, but I guess my
> > team is too low on the pecking order. Have any other teams
> > experienced the same problem and/or seen it corrected today?
>
> > Also, does anyone know the status of Cal-A? They are ranked
> > 8th on RRI, which should be high enough to give the NW a
> > strength bid if they were ranked.
> > --
> > Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

If you can find and prove a date at which the player was declared
academically ineligible you can still keep the results that were from
before that date.

DanD
Re: Rankings as of April 8th [message #57005 is a reply to message #56998] Thu, 08 April 2010 14:33 Go to previous message
grushk
Messages: 29
Registered: December 2008
Junior Member
They had to pay UPA dues for the tournament because the UPA provides services such as insurance. That's not a scam at all.
Previous Topic:***3 Bids Left*** Cramp Up, Ashland, OR, May 1 -2
Next Topic:need a ride to henlopen from upstate NY
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Apr 1 12:50:53 PDT 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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