AC Regionals will only see two teams advance to Nationals this year. Dang it! Thanks GCSU. Click here to read the article: http://www.upa.org/college/2008_wildcards
Here are my opinions:
1. The Metro East Region has 80 teams. Here is a list of the teams. The teams in bold are the teams I have seen in a tournament or heard of from other people. Teams in italics are teams that I have never heard of until I just read through them.
*1 - Maryland
*2 - Delaware
*3 - George Washington
4 - Salisbury
5T - Catholic
5T - Towson
7 - Georgetown
8 - American
9 - St Mary's
10 - Maryland-B
11T - George Washington-B
11T - Goucher
13T - Johns Hopkins
13T - Delaware-B
13T - Salisbury-B
*1 - Pennsylvania
*2 - Lehigh
3 - Swarthmore
4 - Franklin & Marshall
5 - Drexel
6 - Millersville
7 - Villanova
8 - Haverford
9 - Eastern
10 - Bloomsburg
11 - Pennsylvania-B
DNF - Drexel-B
East Stroudsburg did not attend
*1 - Princeton
*2 - Vassar
*3 - Hofstra
4 - College of New Jersey
5 - Rutgers
6 - Columbia
7T - NYU
7T - SUNY-Stony Brook
9 - Monclair State
10 - Rowan
11 - Rider
12 - Rutgers-B
DNF - Adelphi
DNF - Drew
DNF - Vassar-B
*1 - Carleton University
*2 - Cornell
*3 - Rensselaer Polytech
*4 - Queens
5T - St Lawrence
5T - SUNY-Buffalo
7T - RIT
7T - SUNY-Oneonta
9T - Colgate
9T - Skidmore
9T - SUNY-Albany
9T - Union
13T - Ithaca
13T - SUNY-Binghamton
13T - Cornell-B
13T - Syracuse
17T - SUNY-Geneseo
17T - Clarkson
17T - Rochester
17T - Bard
21 - Siena
Hamilton did not show up.
*1 - Pittsburgh
*2 - Edinboro
*3 - Bucknell
*4 - Penn State
5T - Carnegie-Mellon
5T - Dickinson
7T - Indiana (Pennsylvania)
7T - Shippensburg
9T - Allegheny
9T - Gettysburg
9T - Pittsburgh-B
9T - Pittsburgh-Johnstown
13T - Bucknell-B
13T - Carnegie-Mellon-B
13T - Grove City
13T - Messiah
13T - Penn State-B
Wow. That is a lot of teams. Who knew Carnegie Mellon and Salisbury had B teams? Why are we giving this region TWO BIDS? Someone please explain it to me. I'm pulling for Rensselaer Polytech in their Regional tournament.
2. South Region. I am excited to see another Texas v. North Texas game, but I think only the winner should advance to Natties. Sorry South. Also, I am pulling for Truman State to upset everyone.
3. Alternative to Size Bids - I think the current system is only decent. I would like to see the average RRI of the region to be the factor for "elite bids" rather than "size bids". Click Here for RRI information. The UPA is just trying to award the Region that sends the most money to their office.
4. My solution - Disclaimor: I don't know if this is possible. I am simply going on the assumptions that Trouble in Vegas and Mardi Gras brackets were fair for all the teams that played and that every pool had a chance to win it all.
I would like to see the Sectionals tournaments deleted. I know Sectionals helps to decide what the seedings are at Regionals, but we should already have enough information about teams before Regionals to figure out the seedings. If we can have 80 team tournaments in Vegas and at Mardi Gras, we can definitely combine the Sectionals to make big Regionals tournaments around the country. The amount of bids per region would depend on the RRI of the teams.
My plan would encourage teams to play in a couple of tournaments with teams from their region as well as National tournaments. The weaker regions couldn't get more than 1 bid unless they started sending their better/best teams to competitive tournaments (and won some games).
What do you think?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Dang, Just Missed the Size Bid
Posted by Taylor at 11:38 PM
Labels: Centex, Edinboro, Maryland, Metro East Region, Pittsburgh, Princeton, RRI, Trouble in Vegas, UPA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
1) Pitt almost upset Georgia in prequarters last year, and Delaware beat Florida. The teams from the NE and GL did what exactly?
2) We need Sectionals precisely because there AREN'T enough results to accurately seed Regionals. Good teams don't play in-Region teams - they travel and play strong out-of-region teams.
3) The Vegas format could absolutely NOT be used to send two teams to Nationals. First of all, it's a three-day tournament. Secondly, there's no backdoor. Third, one loss can eliminate teams (see: Florida, Tufts). If you're trying to find the best two teams, eliminating one-loss teams is a no-no. Also, the format relies heavily on the initial seeding.
4) RRI is NOT a valid method of comparing teams. There's a reason the UPA doesn't mention it in their guidelines for seeding Regionals. It's also why the NUMP is more trusted than the UPA Top 25.
no love for Auburn on your South Region prediction? I am disappointed :(
but Pitt didn't upset Jojah and Delaware still lost their pool and Florida still win the pool. As far as I can tell, that win meant little as far as nationals was concerned.
Taylor,
Jonah played suny-oneota at warm up, stupid
1. No love for Auburn until they beat Texas or North Texas. Sorry Phil.
2.
Dear the pulse,
You are correct. In everything you said. My dream is to delete sectionals. That is why I was put on Earth. In my dream, teams would be encouraged to play a couple of tournaments with teams in their regions. the pulse, you are trying to shatter my dream, and I won't have it. Just kidding.
But seriously, I would rather have a three day tournament rather than having Sectionals. Bring it on. It would be a lot more fun. Once again, this is my dream. Also, who needs a back door? Good teams don't lose.
Lastly, the 80 team tournament would happen only in the Metro East region. The bottom teams could have play in games to even go to my dream Regionals tournament. Man, that would be awesome.
3. I'm excited about Regionals.
Post a Comment