Info on how Pools are being selected....

[Typod]

Relax find me once the pools come out, and I will have a few for you.

[Trey it Up]

Can someone provide a list of all the teams that were grossly over/under seeded and over/under performed in that tournament to justify the claim that they were over/under seeded?

After all the MB banter about MB banter inflating or deflating so many teams' seeds, I simply don't recall many tournaments where this was the case. Maybe somebody can prove me wrong, though. Or maybe this MB banter about MB banter is just MB banter.

I've asked for an example 3 times, the problem is with the exception of a superdudes there isn't one. People will always find something wrong with the way things are done, that's life

True, but the seedings didn't stop Superdudes from advancing. They played their pool play games, won them all (if I remember correctly), beat some very good teams, advanced to elimination round as a top seed, and didn't lose until they ran into Meatballs. You can't even use them as justification against a seeded bracket because it didn't prevent them from advancing exactly as far as they should have.

[Captain_Relax]

Can someone provide a list of all the teams that were grossly over/under seeded and over/under performed in that tournament to justify the claim that they were over/under seeded?

After all the MB banter about MB banter inflating or deflating so many teams' seeds, I simply don't recall many tournaments where this was the case. Maybe somebody can prove me wrong, though. Or maybe this MB banter about MB banter is just MB banter.

I've asked for an example 3 times, the problem is with the exception of a superdudes there isn't one. People will always find something wrong with the way things are done, that's life

True, but the seedings didn't stop Superdudes from advancing. They played their pool play games, won them all (if I remember correctly), beat some very good teams, advanced to elimination round as a top seed, and didn't lose until they ran into Meatballs. You can't even use them as justification against a seeded bracket because it didn't prevent them from advancing exactly as far as they should have.

Haha trust me you dong have to convinve me. I think I've made my point clear on the better way to do things. I thought we had put this to rest a few days ago

[Captain_Relax]

Relax find me once the pools come out, and I will have a few for you.

Impossible you can't possibly have the knowledge to know which teams are over/under rated until the tournament is over. Like trey said teams that deserve a better ranking find a way to beat the teams in front of them (I.e. Superdudes) and teams that are overrated will lose and not advance out of pool play anyways. If what you guys are claiming to happen happens then it would be very apparent by teams consistently outplaying or underplaying their seed and yet we can only list one example and they were able to make it out of pool play just fine.

[Typod]

Just be realistic. There's three pools and three teams clearly the 123, but two of those teams in one Pool?

[Captain_Relax]

Just be realistic. There's three pools and three teams clearly the 123, but two of those teams in one Pool?

I don't follow. Are you saying its just not fair to the lower seeds? I mean let's be realistic do you think anyone past the top 10 have a chance of advancing past pool play in this tournament? I definitely do not baring something WEIRD. This means the 7/8/9/10 seeds gets two shots at the perceived top seeds and only really needs to win one game between the two of those to advance. Those aren't horrible odds UNLESS you think that the top are just that much better in which this would make the entire "seeding is stupid" agrument irrelevant. Either scenario is a victory in favor of seeding.

If your argument is to let the little guys have a chance, I just can't get behind that, people pay too much money to travel and play in these tournaments, letting a potential pool of all scrubs happen even though its a long shot, shouldn't be left to chance

[Typod]

Do you agree there is a clear 1 2 3 going into this event?

[Typod]

Relax find me once the pools come out, and I will have a few for you.

Impossible you can't possibly have the knowledge to know which teams are over/under rated until the tournament is over.

I'm not implying that. just don't feel I should put the specific team names on the board and starting a shit talking storm

[Horses and Genitals]

I'm not sure if I mentioned it or not but the only one I can think of was the Ninja Kitties incarnation at SFKO. We were quite over-seeded.

Then again, it wasn't because we pumped ourselves up on here. I think it was more the "Ultra's the best!" talk that was prevalent.

[Captain_Relax]

Relax find me once the pools come out, and I will have a few for you.

Impossible you can't possibly have the knowledge to know which teams are over/under rated until the tournament is over.

I'm not implying that. just don't feel I should put the specific team names on the board and starting a shit talking storm

I mean if not for a shit storm what else are these boards for?

And no I don't think many people have a clear 1/2/3 (going by everyones final four posts. I think everyone truely believes that NYSH are the 1 and from there there's teams bundled up

[Kolanko_25]

There are valid points for/against different tournament formats. To think that there is currently only one method that is far superior to possible alternative(s) is just ignorant.

Is it possible that there haven't been many teams that appear grossly over/under seeded because the current hand selection process (based on opinion) places teams at an advantage/disadvantage with their seeding before the tournament even starts? You can't answer that question since it's always been done the same way. Maybe it still wouldn't have changed any of the tournament winners last year (it's probable that MB or PA would've won all the tournaments regardless of format; unless they ran into each other before the finals), but as the skill/depth gap continues to shrink around the country, trust that it will become an issue. A larger sample size will prove this.

Having a high seed doesn't guarantee those teams anything, but it provides an advantage. Why do the top teams need or deserve that advantage?

Seeds can be compared to your seat position in poker. Anyone can win each hand, but the player on the button (and the players that act just before him) have a big advantage. I probably wouldn't expect to win too many poker tournaments if Phil Ivey gets to sit on the button for every hand.

[Typod]

And no I don't think many people have a clear 1/2/3

I'd like to see a valid argument as to how the NYSH, JKI, Relax are NOT 1. 2. 3. In that order based on resume.

1. NYSH always dominant, most accomplished team in the tourney, CC runner up.
2. JKI SFKO semi-finalist
3. Relax, defending champ, home turf.

Now tomorrow if two of those teams are in the same pool I will continue to say it was seeded incorrectly.I'm willing to bet NYSH and JKI wind up in the same pool and 3 teams have to play both of them in pool play, while they get a cake walk. Which defies logic, especially when there is a clear top 3, and 3 pools they could each be the 1 seed in.

[j22201]

I will agree with Typod on this in that they will have a calk walk and will rest their starters until elims for sure.

[Trey it Up]

There are valid points for/against different tournament formats. To think that there is currently only one method that is far superior to possible alternative(s) is just ignorant.

Is it possible that there haven't been many teams that appear grossly over/under seeded because the current hand selection process (based on opinion) places teams at an advantage/disadvantage with their seeding before the tournament even starts? You can't answer that question since it's always been done the same way. Maybe it still wouldn't have changed any of the tournament winners last year (it's probable that MB or PA would've won all the tournaments regardless of format; unless they ran into each other before the finals), but as the skill/depth gap continues to shrink around the country, trust that it will become an issue. A larger sample size will prove this.

Having a high seed doesn't guarantee those teams anything, but it provides an advantage. Why do the top teams need or deserve that advantage?

Seeds can be compared to your seat position in poker. Anyone can win each hand, but the player on the button (and the players that act just before him) have a big advantage. I probably wouldn't expect to win too many poker tournaments if Phil Ivey gets to sit on the button for every hand.

This post couldn't be any more inaccurate. Check out the pools for NYKO last year. Panik played the following schedule:

1. NYSH
2. OSC
3. Situation
4. Good Will Bunting
5. LIU
6. Situation
7 OSC

The top teams were all put in a pool with each other. The worst teams were all put in a pool with each other. The top 8 seeds all made it to the Elite 8, despite having BY FAR the toughest pool play schedule. 15 of the top 16 seeds made it to the Elimination round. Every team in PA's pool made the Final Four.

I thought the NYKO put to rest this argument that seeding teams in a snake format was the reason top seeded teams made it further in elimination. Top seeded teams make it further because they're better.

[j22201]

by Trey it Up » April 19th, 2012, 11:29 am This post couldn't be any more inaccurate. Check out the pools for NYKO last year. Panik played the following schedule:

1. NYSH
2. OSC
3. Situation
4. Good Will Bunting
5. LIU
6. Situation
7 OSC

The top teams were all put in a pool with each other. The worst teams were all put in a pool with each other. The top 8 seeds all made it to the Elite 8, despite having BY FAR the toughest pool play schedule. 15 of the top 16 seeds made it to the Elimination round. Every team in PA's pool made the Final Four.

I thought the NYKO put to rest this argument that seeding teams in a snake format was the reason top seeded teams made it further in elimination. Top seeded teams make it further because they're better.

Very true....

[2_easy]

There are valid points for/against different tournament formats. To think that there is currently only one method that is far superior to possible alternative(s) is just ignorant.

Is it possible that there haven't been many teams that appear grossly over/under seeded because the current hand selection process (based on opinion) places teams at an advantage/disadvantage with their seeding before the tournament even starts? You can't answer that question since it's always been done the same way. Maybe it still wouldn't have changed any of the tournament winners last year (it's probable that MB or PA would've won all the tournaments regardless of format; unless they ran into each other before the finals), but as the skill/depth gap continues to shrink around the country, trust that it will become an issue. A larger sample size will prove this.

Having a high seed doesn't guarantee those teams anything, but it provides an advantage. Why do the top teams need or deserve that advantage?

Seeds can be compared to your seat position in poker. Anyone can win each hand, but the player on the button (and the players that act just before him) have a big advantage. I probably wouldn't expect to win too many poker tournaments if Phil Ivey gets to sit on the button for every hand.

This post couldn't be any more inaccurate. Check out the pools for NYKO last year. Panik played the following schedule:

1. NYSH
2. OSC
3. Situation
4. Good Will Bunting
5. LIU
6. Situation
7 OSC

The top teams were all put in a pool with each other. The worst teams were all put in a pool with each other. The top 8 seeds all made it to the Elite 8, despite having BY FAR the toughest pool play schedule. 15 of the top 16 seeds made it to the Elimination round. Every team in PA's pool made the Final Four.

I thought the NYKO put to rest this argument that seeding teams in a snake format was the reason top seeded teams made it further in elimination. Top seeded teams make it further because they're better.

I thought this format was better then any other because all teams essentially made it to the elimination games (I consider the play in games elim games). Now if these were the pools and the bottom 1 or 2 teams didn't advance then you have an argument.