Super-Regionals?

[Jester]

I would like to see AMTA adopt a Super Regional System as follows:

Have 22 regionals, tops.

Have each regional champ earn a trip to championship, this keeps a premium on our regional tournaments.

Use the power bid formula to fill out 48 bids to each of FOUR super regionals.

I would also allow a team to qualify no more than TWO teams to a resepective post regional tournament. As such, a team could qualify  1 to championship, and two to super regional, with the understanding that only one could get out of super regional.

You would then have 10 bids to gold come out of each of the four super regionals, the top 5 in each division. That's a total of 62 bids.

The remaining two bids would automatically go to the two programs that were in the championship round the previous year.

So, UCLA and Georgia Tech could still earn no more than TWO trips to gold, but would already have one in the bag, as a reward from the year before.

adding a 23rd or 24th regional woudl get rid of these two bids.

[MiaWUCU]

I would like to see AMTA adopt a Super Regional System as follows:

Have 22 regionals, tops.

Have each regional champ earn a trip to championship, this keeps a premium on our regional tournaments.

Use the power bid formula to fill out 48 bids to each of FOUR super regionals.

I would also allow a team to qualify no more than TWO teams to a resepective post regional tournament. As such, a team could qualify  1 to championship, and two to super regional, with the understanding that only one could get out of super regional.

You would then have 10 bids to gold come out of each of the four super regionals, the top 5 in each division. That's a total of 62 bids.

The remaining two bids would automatically go to the two programs that were in the championship round the previous year.

So, UCLA and Georgia Tech could still earn no more than TWO trips to gold, but would already have one in the bag, as a reward from the year before.

adding a 23rd or 24th regional woudl get rid of these two bids.

Kris, do I understand your system right that any team outside the top 192 power ranked schools could only get to nationals by winning their regional?  That seems fundamentally unfair to newer programs.

[JayZ]

I would like to see AMTA adopt a Super Regional System as follows:

Have 22 regionals, tops.

Have each regional champ earn a trip to championship, this keeps a premium on our regional tournaments.

Use the power bid formula to fill out 48 bids to each of FOUR super regionals.

I would also allow a team to qualify no more than TWO teams to a resepective post regional tournament. As such, a team could qualify  1 to championship, and two to super regional, with the understanding that only one could get out of super regional.

You would then have 10 bids to gold come out of each of the four super regionals, the top 5 in each division. That's a total of 62 bids.

The remaining two bids would automatically go to the two programs that were in the championship round the previous year.

So, UCLA and Georgia Tech could still earn no more than TWO trips to gold, but would already have one in the bag, as a reward from the year before.

adding a 23rd or 24th regional woudl get rid of these two bids.

The provision of grandfathering the prior finalists aside, I have fully embraced this system and anyone that knows me knows the zealous manner in which I preach its near-prefection.

[FundamentalPrecepts]

I think it sounds like a fantatic system. That said, I'd like to hear from those opposed to it, because I'm sure I haven't thought through all potential downsides yet.

[Golden Skull]

I'm confused on one point.  Without the grandfathering provision, would super-regionals replace regionals as they exist now?  Or would you still have to go through regionals to get to super regionals, before nationals?  Would super-regionals be a winnower, or a new system?

[UMCane*GWB]

I think Kris  meant use the power bid system to evenly distribute teams among the four super regionals...but im not sure.

If that is the case, I think it would cause problems by adding extra costs. 40 of the DSM qualifiers in that case would have to pay for two extra tournaments, and in many cases those tournaments would include substantial travel. If you have the Super Regionals actually Regionally tied, you could decrease travel cost significantly on the whole. To that end, I would be in favor of trimming down the fields that Kris mentioned and instead adding 2 - 4 more super regionals. You could have a Northeast, One in the South around NC and another maybe in Western Florida or Southern GA, a northern midwest and a southern midwest, and a west. That would do a good job of putting the majority of teams within reasonable driving distance or cheap flight of their Super Regional.

[MiaWUCU]

OK, so the teams qualify to the super regional out of the regular regional, with bids to super regional being determined in the manner we now advance gold/silver bids.

If I understand correctly, does this mean the same exact teams move on to the "postseason" than do under our current system?  Just #1 goes to nats and #2-7 (or whatever) go to superregional?  I'm not sure what difference this really makes.

[JayZ]

I think it also does a better job of weeding out subpar teams.  You don't get to sneak into a second or third place finish and go to gold, more teams have to prove themselves at a superregional with tougher competition.

[UMCane*GWB]

That is a very good point Jeremy. Very rarely can you question a regional champion on its merits being in Gold...but (even though one should never say someone doesnt deserve a bid) you can make arguments against a 2 or 3 place being "worthy" of going to Gold easier.

[felixfuissem]

how would judging be affected? this is a problem at a lot of regionals as well, but since under this system one crrrazy judge could send UCLA A to a super-regional all by him/herself, the competition at Gold could be seriously compromised if we couldn't be assured of rational, DsM-level judging at the super-regionals. Right now, while a nutbar can affect who's the champion, it's fairly reasonable to assume that an 8-0-quality team will go 7-1 or so, which should get them to gold (and if not, should likely get them a leftover Act of AMTA Bid... ). Since this system could easily send 7-1s (or even 8-0s) to super-regional, we need to make sure that the best teams really are getting out of there.

[uscmikey]

OK, just to play devil's advocate...

The main argument against this system is that it's just not that economically feasible for many programs.

For most teams, you will have to spend money to travel to regionals.  Then, if you're not lucky enough to finish in first place (and even if your team does finish in first place, in order to get a second bid), you have to spend more money to travel to the super regional.  Then again, if you are able to finish in the top 10 in the division, then you will have to spend even more money to send your team to the National Championship tournament.  

Additionally, this system gives a substantial advantage to those programs that can afford to send multiple teams to multiple regionals, as a way to bypass the super regional and send more than one team directly to gold.  This will create an incentive for teams to not host regionals, as it is difficult to plan a regional and travel to multiple regionals in a matter of weeks.

And what happens if three teams from a given program finish in first place in a regional?  Which of those three second place teams will take their place?  

That being said, this does seem that this is the best way to ensure the best field for the championship tournament.  And with the number of teams rapidly increasing, this system is inevitable.  However, in the immediate future (and even under this system), I think AMTA should focus on eliminating the imbalance of power from region to region.

[UMCane*GWB]

I think for some programs it might end up costing a bit more...but (excluding the fact that more teams overall will be participating in post regional action) overall I think it would actually save most teams money. It would in effect be replacing a Silver tournament that may be halfway across the country with a Super Regional that hopefully is within driving distance for most of its attendees. If done right, I think this makes sense financially and strategically (for the goal of getting the best DSM field).

[felixfuissem]

I honestly don't see how good teams would have an incentive to regional-shop... as is, the vast majority of regionals have one very strong team, perhaps two. I can't imagine what schools, assuming the regional assignments were similar to now, could reasonably expect to win two regionals. Why not just go to one and assume one team will win and the other will place in around the top ten (which is what this system seems to require to get to a super-regional?)

[JayZ]

I think for some programs it might end up costing a bit more...but (excluding the fact that more teams overall will be participating in post regional action) overall I think it would actually save most teams money. It would in effect be replacing a Silver tournament that may be halfway across the country with a Super Regional that hopefully is within driving distance for most of its attendees. If done right, I think this makes sense financially and strategically (for the goal of getting the best DSM field).

Wow. Don made a good point that I agree with.

Is that... is that Jesus Christ? Is he riding a horse? Huh, it seems kind of pale looking, maybe it's anemic... oh, crap.

[UMCane*GWB]

Wow. Don made a good point that I agree with.

Is that... is that Jesus Christ? Is he riding a horse? Huh, it seems kind of pale looking, maybe it's anemic... oh, crap.

Woot!