Quote:
So what you are saying is the world cup or March Madness or whatever in Basketball should reseed every step in order to keep the higher seeds going? Should the Giants replay the superbowl win over the Patriots because the Patriots were clearly better?
What you are also saying is that a team that is "known" to be "better" but faltered during the season should be seeded higher at the start?
it is a known fact at the beginning of the season that is 1 vs 8, 4 vs5 on one side and 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 on the other.
you bring your game every time, you lose you go home. There is nothing "fair" about it...
I think you totally mis-understand the concept of re-seeding. It is done in some playoffs, but not all. For example, it is done in professional baseball, basketball and hockey, but not the NFL.
It is totally objective and based on regular season results. The only change from the current method of state cup would be that, when entering the semi-finals, the highest remaining seed would play the lowest remaining seed and the two middle seeds would play.
Neither method is right, neither method is wrong, but neither method is unfair either. Re-seeding simply better rewards regular season results.
I only mentioned it because reseeding provides a better approach to trying to have the two best teams as finalists, which only matters if the two finalists automatically go to PL. If this is the case, I think you should always reseed the winners each round to improve the possibility that the two best remaining teams will play in the finals.
But if a state committee gets to decide that the 3rd place team better represents the state in PL than the second place team, it doesn't really matter, does it?
I personally would prefer it get re-seeded after the first round and that the two finalists go to PL. That approach provides a more objective method and lets the kids determine the best two teams on the field, not a group in a room.
Last edited by JAK; 05/12/09 05:09 PM.
