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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » B teams at Regionals
B teams at Regionals [message #61352] Sat, 08 May 2010 15:35 Go to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
Colorado-B
UC San Diego-B
Michigan-B
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---three B teams at Regionals.
that's nice work...for those three schools!

oh....and Carleton GOP of course!
PSYCH!.....i'm joking guys!
GOP is my favorite Carleton team.....sincerely.

Florida-C....right?
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62014 is a reply to message #61352] Tue, 11 May 2010 12:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mskrabec
Messages: 15
Registered: May 2010
Location: Sonoma State University
Junior Member
Thats proof that some sections have it way too easy to go to regionals. Re-structure UPA!
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62019 is a reply to message #62014] Tue, 11 May 2010 13:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
William Everhart
Messages: 32
Registered: March 2010
Member
thats proof of hard work. big school b-teams work hard, obviously
these 3 did. when the a-team needs talent that graduated last year
where do they look in the fall? last years b-team. so a lot of support
is spend into getting b-team players good, good enough to make
regionals. props to those three schools and whoever captained/coached
those b-teams.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62024 is a reply to message #62014] Tue, 11 May 2010 13:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mgd.mitch
Messages: 1207
Registered: January 2009
Senior Member
mskrabec wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 15:37
Thats proof that some sections have it way too easy to go to regionals. Re-structure UPA!
Yeah, Carleton GOP is obviously a marginal team. What were they, 2 points from nationals? Obviously Iowa is a terrible team allowing a lowly "B" team to nearly win.

What the UPA needs to do is stop counting B teams towards sectional size for size bids. Having 4 teams from each of 4 schools is not representing the same growth as having 1 team from 16 schools. Too many sections with tons of B teams are pushing the lessor A teams into regionals at the expense of (sometimes much) stronger A teams from other sections.

mgd

ps. props to carleton GOP from almost making natties, and almost putting 3 teams into natties from 1 section.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62025 is a reply to message #62019] Tue, 11 May 2010 13:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ross.lenta
Messages: 26
Registered: March 2009
Junior Member
It's also worth mentioning that UCSD-B brought ~15 players, most of
which drove from San Diego to Fort Collins.

Ross
Coach SDSU
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62026 is a reply to message #62025] Tue, 11 May 2010 14:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
panda
Messages: 51
Registered: May 2010
Location: michigan
Member
i personally played against michigan b at sectionals, and if the other b teams are of the same caliber as michB, they rightly earned their regional bid. just because of the connotation "B" has, shouldnt merit the discrimination mentioned above. michB played with much intensity and fighting spirit (obviously modeled from magnum) and proved to be the 4th best team in the section.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62027 is a reply to message #62025] Tue, 11 May 2010 14:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ethatche
Messages: 2
Registered: May 2010
Junior Member
How about B-teams in games to go?

Florida B lost a good game to UCF. I have no idea what the problem was with the redone sectionals bids, but had the first draft stood, they would have made regionals.

Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62034 is a reply to message #61352] Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mskrabec
Messages: 15
Registered: May 2010
Location: Sonoma State University
Junior Member
I never said these teams weren't good, or they didn't work hard. Props to them for competing over A-teams.

The point of the above statement was to say that I'm sure there are teams that fell one or two bids short of regionals in certain sections, where other sections got a bid or two too many. Which put a lesser team to regionals.


It happens.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62078 is a reply to message #62034] Wed, 12 May 2010 05:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kevin Cole
Messages: 10
Registered: April 2009
Junior Member
"The point of the above statement was to say that I'm sure there are teams that fell one or two bids short of regionals in certain sections, where other sections got a bid or two too many. Which put a lesser team to regionals."


You are making a large assumption that these B teams are in fact a lesser team than the supposed teams that fell short.

Now, I'm not trying to argue that a restructuring is or is not needed, and I certainly am not all that familiar with these specific teams. But to dismiss a group of players as a lesser team because they are labeled as "B" and automatically assume that any success on their part is due to a structuring problem is naive.

It could practically be the case that of all the teams in a given region, the 16 best teams did in fact make regionals. If there happens to be a B team that is in the best 16 in the region, why is there a need to restructure because they made it?

If you want to argue a restructure, that is fine with me, but your logic needs to be more sound. Tell me why a specific team should or should not be there based on the merits of their performance and the performances of other specific teams that were cheated out of a precious regionals bid.

Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62081 is a reply to message #62078] Wed, 12 May 2010 06:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mgd.mitch
Messages: 1207
Registered: January 2009
Senior Member
Kevin Cole wrote on Wed, 12 May 2010 08:58
It could practically be the case that of all the teams in a given region, the 16 best teams did in fact make regionals. If there happens to be a B team that is in the best 16 in the region, why is there a need to restructure because they made it?

If you want to argue a restructure, that is fine with me, but your logic needs to be more sound. Tell me why a specific team should or should not be there based on the merits of their performance and the performances of other specific teams that were cheated out of a precious regionals bid.
I don't think people are saying a B team shouldn't be going to regionals over a weaker A team. Currently ~75% of bids to regionals are based on size, not strength. Thus a section with 16 teams (8 A, 8 B) has a huge bid advantage over a section with 8 A teams. Perhaps some of the B teams are better than some of the top A teams from the other section, but perhaps the top A teams in the small section are better than the top A teams in the big section. The point is B teams effect the single biggest factor in determining bids....size. It gives a huge, non-strength based advantage for the A team in the bigger section. I watched a regional tourney last year that had ~3 teams that were noticeably inferior to teams eliminated at sectionals.

and to make it worse, team strength bids (a new concept this year) use size bids to determine which teams to compare....before size bids are finalized. A section can lose a size bid on the day of sectionals and have it's "next next" team compared with another sections "next" team, thus making the team strength bid comparison happen between the wrong teams. (this actually happened this year).

i think B teams are great. let them play. count them in strength calculations. let them make regionals and nationals if they make the cut. but don't count them for size. it's not a perfect solution, but i think it is better if size bids are not going away (or massively downsized).
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62083 is a reply to message #62081] Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
hell yes.....let the B teams play!
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62092 is a reply to message #62078] Wed, 12 May 2010 07:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JephB
Messages: 108
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
On May 12, 9:00 am, Kevin Cole <KevinCC...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The point of the above statement was to say that I'm sure
> there are teams that fell one or two bids short of regionals
> in certain sections, where other sections got a bid or two
> too many. Which put a lesser team to regionals."
>
> You are making a large assumption that these B teams are in
> fact a lesser team than the supposed teams that fell short.
>
> Now, I'm not trying to argue that a restructuring is or is
> not needed, and I certainly am not all that familiar with
> these specific teams. But to dismiss a group of players as a
> lesser team because they are labeled as "B" and
> automatically assume that any success on their part is due
> to a structuring problem is naive.
>
> It could practically be the case that of all the teams in a
> given region, the 16 best teams did in fact make regionals.
> If there happens to be a B team that is in the best 16 in
> the region, why is there a need to restructure because they
> made it?
>
> If you want to argue a restructure, that is fine with me,
> but your logic needs to be more sound. Tell me why a
> specific team should or should not be there based on the
> merits of their performance and the performances of other
> specific teams that were cheated out of a precious regionals
> bid.
>
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

Kevin Cole tore his ACL typing that.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62102 is a reply to message #62081] Wed, 12 May 2010 08:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andy Dunn
Messages: 31
Registered: October 2008
Location: Fayetteville, Ark.
Member
>
> i think B teams are great.  let them play.  count them in
> strength calculations.  let them make regionals and
> nationals if they make the cut.  but don't count them for
> size.  it's not a perfect solution, but i think it is better
> if size bids are not going away (or massively downsized).
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

Why would you not count them towards size? Just because they share
the same school as the A team? They are separate teams and should be
counted as such. If the point of the size bid allocation is to reward
sections with more players extra spots to regionals, the B teams
absolutely qualify. Most B teams (especially the ones that made it to
regionals) are not teams of 7 scrubs that want to play pickup and
decide to sign up for the series. Most of them are the same size as
(or bigger than) many A teams. Out of curiosity, what college do you
play for? Are you sad that your section is small and you didn't have
the chance to get blown out at regionals? Want more bids size bids to
regionals? Build your program and have enough interest to form a B
team.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62104 is a reply to message #62102] Wed, 12 May 2010 09:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mgd.mitch
Messages: 1207
Registered: January 2009
Senior Member
Andy Dunn wrote on Wed, 12 May 2010 11:52
>
> i think B teams are great.  let them play.  count them in
> strength calculations.  let them make regionals and
> nationals if they make the cut.  but don't count them for
> size.  it's not a perfect solution, but i think it is better
> if size bids are not going away (or massively downsized).
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

Why would you not count them towards size? Just because they share the same school as the A team? They are separate teams and should be counted as such. If the point of the size bid allocation is to reward sections with more players extra spots to regionals, the B teams absolutely qualify.
Size bids are to encourage growth. Personally, I see a section who has put 16 teams at 16 colleges as having grown far more than a section with 16 teams a 8 colleges. Second, I constantly hear A teams pushing to get teams together just to push up the number of bids (not because they want to see them play). How does a college getting 2 more teams to go to sectionals so one more A team can go to regionals make regionals better? To me, regionals is best when the top 16 teams in the region play (with one exception being every single section should be represented, even if all the teams in that section suck).Quote:
Most B teams (especially the ones that made it to regionals) are not teams of 7 scrubs that want to play pickup and decide to sign up for the series. Most of them are the same size as (or bigger than) many A teams.
I wouldn't agree with "most." I would agree with "more than in the past."Quote:
Out of curiosity, what college do you play for?
haven't played college in over a decade.Quote:
Are you sad that your section is small and you didn't have the chance to get blown out at regionals?
no, I am disappointed that good teams don't get a chance to go to regionals when lessor to pathetic teams are there.Quote:
Want more bids size bids to regionals?
no, i want FAR fewer size bids and more strength bids. I want to see good teams play. Sending them home because other sections have more B teams doesn't make for good spectating (I am an observer). I have no dog in this fight in terms of favoring one specific section over another, I just want to watch/work tournies with the best teams possible.

In a perfect world, this would be moot as size bids wouldn't exist and everything would be based on well defined strength, with a minimum bid of 1 for each section.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62107 is a reply to message #62092] Wed, 12 May 2010 09:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kevin Cole
Messages: 10
Registered: April 2009
Junior Member
JephB wrote on Wed, 12 May 2010 10:42
On May 12,

Kevin Cole tore his ACL typing that.


The jokes on you, I don't even have an ACL anymore! Just started playing again, and have an enormous custom brace wrapping my leg. It's pretty awesome.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62143 is a reply to message #62102] Wed, 12 May 2010 11:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ChuckYu
Messages: 15
Registered: November 2009
Location: Rockville, MD
Junior Member
I sort of have to agree with Mitch. I played in the North Carolina
section, and almost every year, very good teams have missed regionals.
In fact, I believe that last-minute dropouts by B-teams have cost the
section a bid to regionals in both of the last two years, and having
played last year, there were definitely teams there that were clearly
weaker than the 4th, or even 5th best teams from the NC section
(historically, the bottom two of UNC, Duke, NC State, ECU, and
Wilmington).

On May 12, 11:52 am, Andy Dunn <andymd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > i think B teams are great.  let them play.  count them in
> > strength calculations.  let them make regionals and
> > nationals if they make the cut.  but don't count them for
> > size.  it's not a perfect solution, but i think it is better
> > if size bids are not going away (or massively downsized).
> > --
> > Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
>
> Why would you not count them towards size?  Just because they share
> the same school as the A team?  They are separate teams and should be
> counted as such.  If the point of the size bid allocation is to reward
> sections with more players extra spots to regionals, the B teams
> absolutely qualify.  Most B teams (especially the ones that made it to
> regionals) are not teams of 7 scrubs that want to play pickup and
> decide to sign up for the series.  Most of them are the same size as
> (or bigger than) many A teams.  Out of curiosity, what college do you
> play for?  Are you sad that your section is small and you didn't have
> the chance to get blown out at regionals?  Want more bids size bids to
> regionals?  Build your program and have enough interest to form a B
> team.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62255 is a reply to message #62143] Wed, 12 May 2010 13:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andy Dunn
Messages: 31
Registered: October 2008
Location: Fayetteville, Ark.
Member
My argument is that growth isn't simply the number of teams at new schools. Growth has to do with the total number of players. If there are enough at one school to form a second team, why should that not count?

As to the statement about a B-team dropping and costing a bid to regionals, all I can say is that is unfortunate. There are plenty of sections that have A teams drop, forget to get their roster in on time, or any number of other unfortunate things. Don't call out B-teams in general because of your 1 bad experience. It cannot be generalized.

I see your point about wanting it to be all strength related in the section, but how do you implement this? Many smaller schools don't get to go play far away teams. Many end up playing their sectional competition over and over again with some regional competition sprinkled in. How then do you determine which section is stronger if a majority of the small A teams and B teams that make up a sectional tournament have only played in section? Where is the comparison? Do you rank solely on the big schools with the means to travel? What if they have a down year, you punish the whole section for that? It makes no sense. At that level of the series, size matters. Its not perfect, but I think it does a good job of sending most of the good teams to regionals and rewards schools for developing their programs to the point of having a B team.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62256 is a reply to message #62255] Wed, 12 May 2010 13:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mgd.mitch
Messages: 1207
Registered: January 2009
Senior Member
Andy Dunn wrote on Wed, 12 May 2010 16:33
My argument is that growth isn't simply the number of teams at new schools. Growth has to do with the total number of players. If there are enough at one school to form a second team, why should that not count?
Well, we have a differing opinion on what constitutes growth (nothing wrong with differing opinions). I don't like that if a section has more sizeable schools than another, that's a big advantage for getting B teams formed. Ignoring Carleton, how many tiny schools have B and C teams versus schools like Florida, Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, etc?Quote:
As to the statement about a B-team dropping and costing a bid to regionals, all I can say is that is unfortunate.
spoken like someone that the rule benefits. if people are offering real reason why it is a bad setup (and offering viable alternatives), "all I can say is that is unfortunate" doesn't cut it. (not trying to be argumentative, just pointing that out).Quote:
There are plenty of sections that have A teams drop, forget to get their roster in on time, or any number of other unfortunate things. Don't call out B-teams in general because of your 1 bad experience. It cannot be generalized.
it can if it happens every year (which it seems to). I know in club, teams have offered to help with costs of an additional team going to sectionals purely to get a size bid. that makes no sense to me and only makes regionals suffer as a field.Quote:
I see your point about wanting it to be all strength related in the section, but how do you implement this? Many smaller schools don't get to go play far away teams. Many end up playing their sectional competition over and over again with some regional competition sprinkled in. How then do you determine which section is stronger if a majority of the small A teams and B teams that make up a sectional tournament have only played in section?
like every other sport, you use strength algorithms to approximate it. Ultimate has RRI for a while to help with seeds in absence of h2h results. Is it perfect? No. But I believe it is possible to have a far stronger regional field than basing purely on size, which is no indicator of strength.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62330 is a reply to message #61352] Thu, 13 May 2010 10:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
retina
Messages: 2
Registered: May 2010
Location: California
Junior Member
if you're an a-team worrying about an b-team messing up your ability to get to regionals, then you've already lost.

only one way to avoid it: try and beat us. i bet you wont
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62337 is a reply to message #62330] Thu, 13 May 2010 10:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dstodds24
Messages: 195
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
retina wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 13:43
if you're an a-team worrying about an b-team messing up your ability to get to regionals, then you've already lost.

only one way to avoid it: try and beat us. i bet you wont


That's not what anyone is arguing.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62338 is a reply to message #62330] Thu, 13 May 2010 10:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mgd.mitch
Messages: 1207
Registered: January 2009
Senior Member
retina wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 13:43
if you're an a-team worrying about an b-team messing up your ability to get to regionals, then you've already lost.

only one way to avoid it: try and beat us. i bet you wont
How exactly does an A team from section 1 beat a B team (or A team) from section 2 to take their SIZE BID to regionals?

If you don't understand the argument at hand, you've already lost (at a lot more than ultimate).
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62440 is a reply to message #61352] Thu, 13 May 2010 20:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
retina
Messages: 2
Registered: May 2010
Location: California
Junior Member
mgd.mitch: "i think B teams are great. let them play. count them in strength calculations. let them make regionals and nationals if they make the cut. but don't count them for size. it's not a perfect solution, but i think it is better if size bids are not going away (or massively downsized)."

--> you do bring up an interesting point. essentially the debate comes down to whether one believes that a b-team is a separate team and whether size bids are appropriate. If you keep size-bids though, you have to count B-teams. They compete separately, and lot of B-teams beat A-teams (not just UCSD, CO, & Michigan, but Stanford, Texas, Oregon, Wisconsin, etc). To not have them count suggest their accomplishments are not as worthy of consideration, or real. I see the argument both ways, and when it comes down to it, someone is going to lose no matter what.

A size-bid system that didn't count them, would be punishing b-teams for happening to share a school and program with another team, or an area with a lot of other teams, is not a fair one either, especially when they compete and train autonomously.

Admitedly my previous post was based on emotion and wasn't super on-topic, but I know how hard UCSD, Colorado and Michigan's B-teams worked to get where they went, and hearing a few suggest them not worthy of calculation consideration simply because of the letter at the end of the same is disrespectful.

And to "you've already lost (at a lot more than ultimate)" guy: please dont take any message board that seriously.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62469 is a reply to message #62440] Fri, 14 May 2010 04:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mgd.mitch
Messages: 1207
Registered: January 2009
Senior Member
retina wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 23:00
And to "you've already lost (at a lot more than ultimate)" guy: please dont take any message board that seriously.
Um, those were your words. Don't like them, don't use them. (they were meant in part as humor and in part to show you how little you understood the logic of everyone's argument).

Really this argument comes down to the fact that size bids suck. I don't take anything away from B teams *competitiveness* by not counting them. I take away from an already poor indicator of who should be at regionals, size bids. Count them for strength bids. If they are good enough, advance them to the next level. I was rooting for Carleton GOP to make it to nationals. The concept of a tiny school having that much talent is awesome. The Central Region earned 4 bids to nationals based on strength (not size), take the 4 strongest teams....and regionals should follow the same pattern.

Yes I understand that someone gets punished relative to the current system. The argument of counting or not counting B teams comes down to size bids vs strength bids. Right now 25% of bids to regionals are based on strength vs 75% on size. As a fan, I want to see better teams at regionals. If they happen to be B teams, great. But I don't want overall lesser A teams at regionals because another section got B teams to show up (the more common outcome). The usual effect of B teams is making *different A teams* make it to regionals, not those B teams we are talking about. I don't see how Clemson going to regionals instead of Duke because Georgia and FL have B teams makes any sense. Sending Clemson to regionals because they are BETTER than Duke makes sense.

Imagine the small NCAA basketball conferences going out and getting local small colleges to join their conferences, making the small conferences bigger than the ACC, Big East, Pac 10, etc. And the result being the NCAA tourney has 1 or 2 reps from the big conferences and 6 reps from the Big Sky and the likes. Watching the top seed from the Big Sky upset Pitt is fun. Making the 1st two rounds of the NCAA tourney an absolute cakewalk isn't.
Re: B teams at Regionals [message #62471 is a reply to message #61352] Fri, 14 May 2010 05:33 Go to previous message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> ---three B teams at Regionals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


---i'm not sure what's going on in this thread.....
did i see something about 'not counting b teams' towards size bids
or.....or not?

either way.....
if b teams were all of a sudden NOT counted towards size bids....every
single B team should immediately change their name and register as a
seperate club at their school, just as GOP did years ago.
Previous Topic:Medicine Men UItimate 2010 Tryout Reminder
Next Topic:Atlanta Club Teams Tryouts
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Feb 18 17:19:53 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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