Evaluating the Seedings

First, I want to say congrats to the DoG crew, especially Marshall. I remember him saying after Nats in 04 that that was probably his best chance for a championship. Well, that isn't the case and I am glad that the team will have the chance to represent the country in Vancouver.

Second, this post isn't really about the seedings. It is about the simple fact that if teams play lots of games, especially inter-regional games...the data is better, the seedings are better, and the quality of Nats is better as the initial pools are better balanced.

So, again, thanks to the Mixed teams that put in the effort to travel during the season and organize events like Boston, ECC, and Labor Day. I think this season pretty clearly speaks that it is positive when teams play under one moniker and take the good with the bad. One of the primary reasons for the initiative to increase inter-regional games was to improve data for seeding Nats, so how did we do?

In subjecting the seedings to a predictive point of view, this was by far the most successful year since I became NXD in 03. 3 of 4 semifinalists were correct. 7 of 8 quarterfinalists were correct. 9 of the top 10. 3 of the bottom 5 were also correct.

Biggest changes:
Poodle Club +5(possible answer: pick-up team...everyone doesn't show up until Nats)
Bashing Pinatas +5
Barrio +4 (no data to seed)
ICE -3
Mischief -3
Bad Larry -5

This is much better when compares to years like 05, where we had the 12th seed in the finals, 11th seed in Semis, etc.

The seedings were, generally, as good as RRI in terms of predicting outcomes. The RRI, if I recall (I didn't save a copy of the matrix before the event), had Rival too high, Amp too low, etc, but was pretty good.

So, get out there, play the games, travel to tournaments, keep your name, and take the good with the bad. Your team will be better off and the sport will benefit from your efforts.