Wednesday, October 10


I don't understand all of the arguing about seeds.

There are blog entries, more blog entries, rsd arguments and more. But really, who cares? Chances are, your team will be seeding within 2 spots of where you honestly think you should be. If you're off by more than that, odds are you have an inflated sense of self.

In the end, as Parinella said somewhere, you can break the teams into (to use his term) "buckets." I'm assuming by this he meant that you can split the teams into groups in which, while the seeding my be debated, the teams in those groups belong pretty squarely below the groups ahead of them and above the groups below them. Outside of that? Weigh whatever you like, present your opinions to the TD or director or whomever does this best, and get over it. Once you get to Nationals, you'll have to beat good teams to win. That's the deal. Nothing more, nothing less. Quibbling about where you start is a waste of time and energy. You will start where you start. What you make of it is far more important.

All that being said, here are the seeding groups, as I perceive them (in no particular order within the groups):

1. Jam, Sockeye, Bravo
2. Furious, Zero
3. Condors, Boston, Ring, Goat
4. Rhino, Truckstop, Chain, Doublewide
5. Machine
6. Pike, VBB

All that being typed, Ring is probably the toughest one to place accurately. They could be considered ahead of Boston, but they could be behind Goat. I'm pretty sure they should be ahead of group 4 Rhino and below group 2 + the Condors... That's where my thought process breaks down.

On a different note, I've started rehabbing a bit differently. I can' really bike or run for an extended period, so I'm jumping rope like a fiend. For intervals, for speed, for endurance, for footwork. I figure if it is good enough for a fucking boxer or other fighter, it might serve me well enough to play ultimate when I don't have to worry about my brain being bashed in. I intersperse it with pushups/pullups and the like to mix it up. It is tough because most things that I do for training involve actually bending the my leg to 90 degrees or more. And that's exactly what causes pain/inflammation in my quad/itb/etc. I'm also doing a bunch of wobble board stuff, which is something I've always found useful, but now it is specifically directed at helping the current issues with my quad.

The biggest thing for my fitness right now is keeping my "cardio" up. That is, being able to do a lot of running/throwing/shuffling. I mean, so long as I maintain a certain level of explosiveness, I'll be fine in that department, but I simply cannot let my body be unprepared for the endurance portion of the Nationals experience. This is counter my general thoughts on training, but there I am rather limited right now as I try to maintain fitness in the face of needing to get my quad rest while still strengthening it and breaking up the scar tissue.

Crazy complex and intensely irritating. But, I'm starting to do as much as I can with the restrictions with which I have been saddled.
Workout Total:
20 min interval
15 min strength
15 min wobble board
massage, stretch, ice


parinella said...

The fuss is because each team wants the easiest road possible. Consider the difference between 6 and 9 (both within group 3). 6 gets to play 14 (easy game), 11 (easier, but still losable), and 3 (hard, but winnable)(if the standard snake is used, maybe not). 9 has to play 1 (easy loss), 8 (tossup), and 16 (guaranteed win (no offense)). 9 has about a 50% chance at advancing to the power pool, with a loss guaranteed, while 6 has, oh, a 75% chance, with about a 25% chance at advancing with a win. Granted that some of this difference is due to 6 generally being a better team than 9, but even if they are about equal, it's much better to be 6.

dusty.rhodes said...

This is exactly what I don't understand.

Sure one road might be perceived as easier, but what is the use of fretting and discussing? I will accept that it is "fun" for some (though not me in any way shape or form) but other than that... you play the schedule they give you.

And where do those numbers come from? 25%? 75%? Are those based on seedings?

That leads me to the next thing... How accurate can the seedings possibly be? What are the chances that 1-16 will be seeded in actual order of strength? For all we know, 11 could be drastically underseeded (or just overperfrom at this tournament... isn't that about where Chain will be seeded?) or 8 could be overvalued (or just underperform). There are just too many damn variables to worry about.

I don't know... I suppose I just feel that it is a decision that is made by someone else and, in the end, I have no control over. So why sweat it? I'll have the answer when I need it. I also simply don't care which teams I play against to get my title.

It just doesn't matter in any true meaningful way. I find arguments about general rules/guidelines by which to seed teams far more interesting than the specific applications of those rules. If that makes sense.

On a related note... this is one of the random things about which I agree with one of the "fringe posters" on rsd. I would be in favor of a completely random draw since our best attempts at seedings are guesswork at best. We don't exactly have a regular season and all of that. I think it was Larry D. Hols, but I don't think it is important enough to look it up.

Alex Peters said...

"I don't know... I suppose I just feel that it is a decision that is made by someone else and, in the end, I have no control over. So why sweat it? I'll have the answer when I need it."

Except you probably do have some control over it. The national directors take input from all the teams, and are probably (at least subconsciously) taking some blogs, RSD, into account, if those sources are providing legitimate discussion and reasoning behind decisions. The fact that there isn't a regular season means the national director relies on these things a lot more than he would otherwise.

dusty.rhodes said...

Sure, Alex, I can give opinions and suggestions, but unless I provide and actual structurally sound argument for a seeding-set that has not otherwise been suggested, I"m just wasting time.

Most seeding arguments go like this:

P1. I use these criteria. This is how I would seed them.
P2. I disagree with you. I use these criteria. This is who I would seed.
P1. Oh really? That's interesting.
P3. I think Team X is seeded too low.
P2. They had 3.4 players at that tournament-- you have to throw that out.
P4. I use a completely different set of criteria to seed teams. This is how I would seed...
P5. Why do regional winners have to be seeded above everyone else in their region?
P2. Well, if we didn't require that, this is what the seedings would look like.
P3. Oh, we should avoid regional rematches!!
P4. No we shouldn't.
P6. But X beat Y head to head!
P5 But Y finished higher at that tournament!
It's just a whole bunch of arguments that are all based on a set of criteria determined by the person advocating a particular set of seeds. instead of arguing about the criteria and their merits, we tend to argue about the results of those criteria and how the results of those criteria look at a given tournament. It always feels pointless. And repetitive from every other seeding argument you've been a part of.

Oh, and the notion that everyone discussing seeds has a vested interest in making their road the easiest is shady as hell. I mean, I'm not sure I trust my captains to be completely forthright, let alone the captains of all of those other teams. Who is to say that a particular seeding set was not simply to give TeamX (who coincidentally suggested that set) an easier road?

Oh... right... I guess Spirit of the Game extends to "Spirit of the Seeding Discussion."

The Pulse said...

Just look at the Safari women arguing extremely hard for the 5/6 seed instead of 7, where they would face a non-Fury/Riot team and have (in their minds) a much better shot at going into power pools 1-0.