Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ORCS Week 1 Results

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ORCS Week 1 Results

    Starting a thread to discuss reactions to ORCS Week One tab summaries.

    Biggest Surprise: Tie between NYU and UC Irvine not making it out. We all knew that with only 5 bids to be distributed, big teams would fall, but NYU especially comes as a shock. The 5 bid rule is especially brutal to west coast competition, and UC Irvine going 5-3 after a 4-0 day one is a very tough draw.

    Most impressive: Ohio State. Ohio State absolutely dominated Geneva, going 14-2 across the board and snagging two nationals bids, I believe for the first time in their history. They will certainly be a strong nationals contender.

    Any other things catch anyone's eye?

  • #2
    Originally posted by happygolucky View Post
    The 5 bid rule is especially brutal to west coast competition, and UC Irvine going 5-3 after a 4-0 day one is a very tough draw.
    Agree that the 5 bid rule makes things more daunting, but even if they had 6 bids, it wouldn't have made the difference for UC Irvine because they were the 7th place team.

    I think the more dominating performance is UCLA. I thought the West Coast ORCS was the biggest collection of heavy hitters, and UCLA going 8-0 undefeated is hard to argue against.

    The rule changes make the NCT open bid list such a nail biter.

    Comment


    • #3
      There are already three teams on the Open Bid list at 6 ballots, which makes it extremely likely that at least one team will be the unlucky team that gets 6 ballots and doesn't go to Nationals. ORCS was already super hard, and now it's tougher than ever. I could see how some people could see that as a good thing -- we are really making sure only the best teams go to nationals -- but on the other hand, I've always felt that getting 6 ballots at ORCS means a team deserves to go to nationals.

      Comment


      • #4
        Anyone know what happened in the round 3 UCLA B vs. Irvine B round? Seems like it was be pretty even matched but it was a 31, 24 point difference in UCLA's favor. Did Irvine B just have an off round or could it be some home field advantage?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by geneva View Post

          Agree that the 5 bid rule makes things more daunting, but even if they had 6 bids, it wouldn't have made the difference for UC Irvine because they were the 7th place team.

          I think the more dominating performance is UCLA. I thought the West Coast ORCS was the biggest collection of heavy hitters, and UCLA going 8-0 undefeated is hard to argue against.

          The rule changes make the NCT open bid list such a nail biter.
          I agree. I know its only 4/9 ORCS in, but even glancing at the NCT Earned Bid List shows me that while there have been some surprising results about teams not earning bids to NCT, there have been no real surprises as far as teams that have earned bids. That is to say, in the past we could expect to see 2/3 "where did they come from" teams that made things fun (think Colorado College, Carthage, Oregon) and we just don't have anything like that so far. Maybe I'm jumping the gun with this, but I wonder if the 5 bids also decreases the odds of some of those surprise teams from advancing, which I think would be a shame.

          Comment


          • #6
            happygolucky We've already seen a decrease in the "surprise" teams. Not a lot of people predicted that St. Thomas would get out, but they got honorable mention with 6 ballots at Cedar Rapids. They are sitting first on the open bid list right now, but there are 5 more ORCS to go so that could change very easily.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by happygolucky View Post

              I agree. I know its only 4/9 ORCS in, but even glancing at the NCT Earned Bid List shows me that while there have been some surprising results about teams not earning bids to NCT, there have been no real surprises as far as teams that have earned bids. That is to say, in the past we could expect to see 2/3 "where did they come from" teams that made things fun (think Colorado College, Carthage, Oregon) and we just don't have anything like that so far. Maybe I'm jumping the gun with this, but I wonder if the 5 bids also decreases the odds of some of those surprise teams from advancing, which I think would be a shame.
              It decreases the odds of a surprise team in the same way it decreases the odds for everyone else. You now get around a 20% statistical chance of getting out, versus 25%. Nothing else about the tournament mechanism changes (except perhaps the calculation for the out bracket cut off for round 4, but I don't think that has a different impact on surprise team vs established team). Carthage was a 2nd place bid, Co College was a 4th place bid, and Oregon was a 5th place bid, so they're not good examples of the phenomenon you're describing: they'd be NCT bound under either the old limit or the current limit.

              I think a more interesting thought experiment is to look at all the recent teams who have been the 6th place bids, who wouldn't have gone to NCT under our new limit. Yale B made it all the way to the final round last year at NCT, but they were a 6th bid team at their ORCS. You could psay it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison because with the addition of a 9th ORCS, each site is very mildly diluted this year compared to past years, but still interesting to look at nonetheless.

              Comment


              • #8
                Something I found interesting is that out of the 20 teams that earned bids, 18 of them never had a round where they dropped both ballots at any point during the weekend. The only 2 teams to earn bids and drop both ballots during a round ORCS week 1 dropped them by single digits to another team with a winning record. Both of those teams went the rest of the weekend undefeated as well.

                Perhaps this is an obvious observation, but my takeaway is that, as always, Nationals will be filled with teams who have been consistently winning every round thus far in 2019, which could signal that this Nats could be as unpredictable as ever.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think the case writers did a good job in balancing this case, which is why you are seeing so many splits between teams. I am eagerly awaiting the ballot analysis to see if the balance is still fairl even.

                  I do think that it is a shame that there will be teams with 6 wins who will not be making it to Nationals. That had only ever happened once before and it seems like it will now be a regular occurrence.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Stanford's schedule at Geneva was a bit strange to look at. Directly comparing them with any of the schools they went up against, on paper I would have expected a sweep every round (not as a bash on those teams, but as high praise for Stanford's program). Given some of their PD splits (+9, +0 against Carthage; +24, +0 against Denver), this makes me think they might have gotten unlucky with judges. Does anyone know what happened in either of those rounds?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Stanford simply has a style that didn't play over well in Geneva. Stanford was loud and aggressive, which didn't go over well against the calm, meeker teams they hit. Stanford just made themselves easy to dislike in a pool of midwestern Illinois-style judges.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MarciaClark View Post
                        Stanford simply has a style that didn't play over well in Geneva. Stanford was loud and aggressive, which didn't go over well against the calm, meeker teams they hit. Stanford just made themselves easy to dislike in a pool of midwestern Illinois-style judges.
                        I haven't seen Stanford this year (but I've seen them plenty in the past) and I suspect this is correct. Midwestern judges and Stanford seem like a clash, and seems like they drew a few judges who just didn't appreciate their style. That Denver split is especially bizarre.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MarciaClark View Post
                          Stanford simply has a style that didn't play over well in Geneva. Stanford was loud and aggressive, which didn't go over well against the calm, meeker teams they hit. Stanford just made themselves easy to dislike in a pool of midwestern Illinois-style judges.
                          OSU is as loud and aggressive as they come and they did just fine in Geneva...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gronksmash View Post

                            OSU is as loud and aggressive as they come and they did just fine in Geneva...
                            But not all judges are the same. I suspect the implication from MarciaClark (that I would agree with) is that more midwestern judges don't like this style. Perhaps Stanford just happened to get these judges, and Ohio State didn't.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Stanford as a program went 11-3-2 so I think they did fine lol

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X