Posted by dacj501 on 8/30/2013 4:25:00 AM (view original):
It seems to me that 1 issue is generating 2 primary (and concurrent) solutions. The seeding as currently done is not terribly good at actually seeding. It is a measure of relative strength, and overall it probably averages out fine, but for individual teams can be very mixed. As a result people are suggesting that we mix up the schedule, but to me that negates the purpose of seeds at all (other than determining which 6 interested coaches get to participate).
If the conferences are seeded in a way that is more in line with how powerful the teams actually are at the time of the challenge then I don't see how it works out to have different seeds play. I'm looking purely from the POV of the MUSDUC, not teams overall NC schedules. In order for the MUSDUC to have any credibility for bragging rights all the seeds must play each other to as closely as possible give each conference the same toughness in scheduling. I know that the conferences are not exactly even and that some 4 seed might be as good as most 2s or whatever, but if the seeding is more accurate than most of the time you'd expect a 4 to lose to a 2, a 5 to a 3, etc. If the seeds don't play each other it is too easy for the schedule to get unbalanced and some conference have an advantage in the tourney. I guess I understand if coaches decide that we can't get the seedings figured out to their satisfaction and want to drop out, and hopefully few enough do so that we can still field 6 conferences if that's the case. I am 100% in favor of a more equitable seeding process, but I can't see the point of not having all the like seeds play one another... I guess if a majority vote that way we'll implement it and see what happens, but I'll have to watch it in action to see if it can disprove my doubts in that case.
I'm going to take it a step further (or rather, a step deeper, you could say): you're saying the seeding method is causing 2 problems...well, the real root cause is the fact that there is seeding. The seeding itself is causing the seeding issues.
I see your point on the seeding, where a 6 seed might be sent to lose 5 games if they face higher seeds. it's a similar issue that's facing the 1 seeds.
I would propose this as an alternative: 5 teams per each of the 6 conferences. No seeds, instead set up a round robin where each team plays a random opponent in each of the competing conferences.
How we determine the 5 teams would be akin to how we decide to determine seeds, except it's just a top 5 determination, no seeding within. otherwise, ending up as any seed can be seen as a huge disadvantage vs. not appearing in the MUSDUC.