Impeachments
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Week 1 Regional Results

+9
GameCockMock
adamsel
BenYaay
UltimateIssue
Timekeeper's Dilemma
happygolucky
TheRealMockProdigy
Pacificus
Birch
13 posters
Go down
avatar
Posts : 11
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2019-12-04
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Week 1 Regional Results

Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:02 am
So... I'm going to start this thread talking about the Claremont Regional because that's what I know best.

Here were the rankings. I've included CS where it's helpful information, or where there were extreme values I found interesting. The highest and lowest CS are included (22.5 and 12).

-Bid Recipients
1. UCSB A
2. ASU E
3. Pomona College A
4. UCLA D
5. Cal Poly SLO D
6. UCLA A (5-2-1, CS 17.5)
-Honorable Mentions
7. Claremont McKenna A (4-2-2, CS 15.5)
8. Cal Poly Pomona A (4-3-1, CS 18.5)
9. UCSB B (4-3-1, CS 16.5)
-The Rest
10. SLO A (4 Ballots- CS of 22.5)
11. Scripps A (4)
12. Fresno D (3.5)
13. Bye Team (3.5)
14. Claremont Mckenna B (3)
15. Scripps B (3)
16. Redlands A (3 - CS of 12.5)
17. Pomona College C (2.5 - CS of 18.5)
18. Redlands B (2.5)
19. ASU F (2.5)
20. Cal Poly Pomona B (2.5)
21. Fresno E (1.5)
22. Chaffey CC (1 - CS of 12))

Most of the regional went down as expected. The top teams at the tournament UCLA A and UCSB A bid out. Another two bids were taken by Pomona College A and UCLA D, which were expected marginal teams.

Cal Poly Pomona A and UCSB B did alright considering that they also had unfortunate runs. Extreme draws aren't that unexpected at Regionals, so its not surprising that two pretty good teams would have an unfortunate shakeup. Either way, they did well as expected.

Crazy things that happened:

So... Claremont McKenna A is apparently good now? They won 2 witness awards, one on each side. They snagged a ballot each off Pomona A and Cal Poly Pomona A. Then again, they sustained only a narrow win against ASU F and dropped/tied to Pomona C, the lowest letter team for each of those schools. Maybe ASU F and Pomona C are both really good, or maybe Claremont McKenna is super inconsistant with their performances. Side bias or one stronger bench doesn't explain it since they hit Pomona A and CPP A on opposite sides.

The two expected best teams at the tournament hit each other in the first round. UCLA A and UCSB A. UCSB A won that round. Also, UCLA A hit UCSB B on Round 4, going +3/0. UCLA A went 5-2-1, only dropping and tying to UCSB. Both rounds UCLA was prosecution. Due to this unlucky run, UCLA D placed above UCLA A, but both received bids. But let's all appreciate UCLA D. They're a legitimately nice team that seem to put in a lot of work, are very fun to compete with, and are legitimately skilled. They 100% earned their bid and I find it really funny that they ranked above their A team. I'm 100% there for lower-letter teams doing better than top-letter teams.

Redlands A did not pull off their ridiculous draw again from last year. While they only hit 1 bidding team and got a CS of 12.5, last year their CS was even lower (either 9 or 9.5, can't remember). I think this is a result of Claremont being more compact and traditional low-performing teams not returning. Regardless, they will likely not be returning to ORCS.

SLO D received a bid at 5th place and SLO A got 10th place. Now CS might explain the weirdness- SLO A had the highest tournament CS of 22.5. They hit UCLA D, UCSB A, and ASU E. That's half of the teams that bid out. SLO D had a comparatively easier run with CS of 15. They hit the Bye team (R1), Claremont McKenna B, Cal Poly Pomona B, and Pomona A. They sustained their only loss against Pomona A. But I still always love it when a team has an internal upset like this.

That brings me to my final point in this long rant- can we all just take a moment to fricken congratulate ASU? Like, they put together a massive goddamn program with 6 teams. They are nice people, and their E team (yeah, their E team) went 7-1 and got 2nd place. Like, I can't imagine the difficulty of organizing a program with 5 teams capable of bidding out of a regional. And they didn't have some joke of a run. They hit SLO A and UCLA D. They didn't have the hardest run at this tournament by any means, but they did not get by purely on luck of the draw. They got by on being a competent, well-prepared program. Congrats ASU.
Pacificus
Posts : 45
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2019-12-18
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:42 am
That brings me to my final point in this long rant- can we all just take a moment to fricken congratulate ASU? Like, they put together a massive goddamn program with 6 teams. They are nice people, and their E team (yeah, their E team) went 7-1 and got 2nd place. Like, I can't imagine the difficulty of organizing a program with 5 teams capable of bidding out of a regional. And they didn't have some joke of a run. They hit SLO A and UCLA D. They didn't have the hardest run at this tournament by any means, but they did not get by purely on luck of the draw. They got by on being a competent, well-prepared program. Congrats ASU.

That is an insane performance. Anybody from ASU want to comment? Are these teams stacked? I had heard ASU's program this year was massive, but to have an E team mop up at a regional is something else.

I think it remains to be seen for the remainder of the year how ASU does. But given the massive pool of talent at hand as ASU (40k+ students) and the similar talent pool at other large state schools (UCLA, UW) should AMTA consider divisions? (similar to the NCAA)
avatar
Posts : 68
Reputation : 101
Join date : 2019-11-25
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:40 am
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
I'm not sure divisions for AMTA really makes sense. A lot of the best programs aren't large schools -- Miami, Rhodes, Yale, etc. are all pretty small, but still have lots of success. Based on that, I'm not really sure what the benefit would be.
happygolucky
Posts : 36
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2019-11-23
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:56 am
Pacificus wrote:
That brings me to my final point in this long rant- can we all just take a moment to fricken congratulate ASU? Like, they put together a massive goddamn program with 6 teams. They are nice people, and their E team (yeah, their E team) went 7-1 and got 2nd place. Like, I can't imagine the difficulty of organizing a program with 5 teams capable of bidding out of a regional. And they didn't have some joke of a run. They hit SLO A and UCLA D. They didn't have the hardest run at this tournament by any means, but they did not get by purely on luck of the draw. They got by on being a competent, well-prepared program. Congrats ASU.

That is an insane performance. Anybody from ASU want to comment? Are these teams stacked? I had heard ASU's program this year was massive, but to have an E team mop up at a regional is something else.

I think it remains to be seen for the remainder of the year how ASU does. But given the massive pool of talent at hand as ASU (40k+ students) and the similar talent pool at other large state schools (UCLA, UW) should AMTA consider divisions? (similar to the NCAA)

What do you mean by divisions?
avatar
Posts : 2
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2019-11-29
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:11 pm
Message reputation : 100% (4 votes)
Pacificus wrote:
That brings me to my final point in this long rant- can we all just take a moment to fricken congratulate ASU? Like, they put together a massive goddamn program with 6 teams. They are nice people, and their E team (yeah, their E team) went 7-1 and got 2nd place. Like, I can't imagine the difficulty of organizing a program with 5 teams capable of bidding out of a regional. And they didn't have some joke of a run. They hit SLO A and UCLA D. They didn't have the hardest run at this tournament by any means, but they did not get by purely on luck of the draw. They got by on being a competent, well-prepared program. Congrats ASU.

That is an insane performance. Anybody from ASU want to comment? Are these teams stacked? I had heard ASU's program this year was massive, but to have an E team mop up at a regional is something else.

Competitor from ASU here. I can confirm that that was our true-stacked E team that went 7-1 at Claremont last weekend. Between back-to-back scrimmages and tournaments every weekend in January, that team put in so much work to get that record, and we're immensely proud of them.
avatar
Posts : 8
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2019-12-06
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Mon Feb 03, 2020 2:44 pm
Message reputation : 100% (2 votes)
I met one of the ASU competitors at Claremont this weekend, and they said both their E and F teams have two second-year captains and everyone else is a first-time freshman, most with no high school mock trial experience or anything. That's absolutely amazing.

The two expected best teams at the tournament hit each other in the first round. UCLA A and UCSB A. UCSB A won that round. Also, UCLA A hit UCSB B on Round 4, going +3/0. UCLA A went 5-2-1, only dropping and tying to UCSB. Both rounds UCLA was prosecution. Due to this unlucky run, UCLA D placed above UCLA A, but both received bids. But let's all appreciate UCLA D. They're a legitimately nice team that seem to put in a lot of work, are very fun to compete with, and are legitimately skilled. They 100% earned their bid and I find it really funny that they ranked above their A team. I'm 100% there for lower-letter teams doing better than top-letter teams.

Yes! UCSB A holding UCLA A to +8 +8 was a surprise to me, but a welcome one -- congrats to UCSB! I'd heard they might have lost several top competitiors, but their style of mock is one I'm a personal fan of -- likable witnesses that don't go over-the-top, genuine depth within objection arguments, and very clear foundational knowledge. They're also incredibly kind people, if memory serves from last year. I can see them solidifying themselves as some of the best in the West Coast within the next 1-2 years.
avatar
Posts : 1
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2019-12-24
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:31 pm
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
Birch wrote:
So... Claremont McKenna A is apparently good now? They won 2 witness awards, one on each side. They snagged a ballot each off Pomona A and Cal Poly Pomona A. Then again, they sustained only a narrow win against ASU F and dropped/tied to Pomona C, the lowest letter team for each of those schools. Maybe ASU F and Pomona C are both really good, or maybe Claremont McKenna is super inconsistant with their performances.

Pomona C and ASU F are both really solid teams. Our team hit Pomona B and Pomona C this season, and I competed against an unstacked[?] Pomona team this fall... they have really clean content, strong character witnesses, and a stellar command of the MRE/case across the board. ASU F had a great coach and captains, some really bright new competitors, and a creative angle on the case that could have thrown some teams off... all to say I think these were two of the stronger teams within their ballot record.
avatar
Posts : 11
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2019-12-04
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:49 pm
BenYaay wrote:

Pomona C and ASU F are both really solid teams. Our team hit Pomona B and Pomona C this season, and I competed against an unstacked[?] Pomona team this fall... they have really clean content, strong character witnesses, and a stellar command of the MRE/case across the board. ASU F had a great coach and captains, some really bright new competitors, and a creative angle on the case that could have thrown some teams off... all to say I think these were two of the stronger teams within their ballot record.

That makes a lot of sense. Pomona C was pretty good from what I heard. And their results speak volumes. They tied for the 3rd highest CS at the tournament and still managed to pick up ballots. They had narrow losses against SLO A and ASU E, and they tied and won against CMC A. A solid record from an almost entirely 1st year team.
avatar
Posts : 43
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2019-11-19
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:05 pm
Message reputation : 0% (1 vote)
Birch wrote: Most of the regional went down as expected.

ummm you expected 3/6 bids to go to D and E teams and for UCLA A to barely make it out??? This was one of the most unpredictable regionals I've ever seen.
avatar
Posts : 11
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2019-12-04
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:07 pm
adamsel wrote:
Birch wrote: Most of the regional went down as expected.

ummm you expected 3/6 bids to go to D and E teams and for UCLA A to barely make it out??? This was one of the most unpredictable regionals I've ever seen.

Both regional predictions for this tournament posted on Impeachments (1 was mine) placed UCLA D in the "Bubble", so them being top 6 is not a surprise. The Regional is not designed to rank teams exactly, but to get the best teams in the top spots and to keep the worst teams out of the top spots. I agree the rankings got weird, but I think the overall regional was *mostly* predictable.

MockTrialAnalysisIsMyDrug got 2/2 of their First In predictions as Bid takers. They also went 8/10 in predicting the top 10 (assuming their Bubble list which included an additional 8 teams is an attempt at predicting the top 10). I went 2/2 for First In and 7/10 in predicting the top 10. However, I would note that I specifically did not try to predict SLO D or ASU E, and these were the only teams both of us failed to choose. It is surprising that they got in the top 6, but we knew that we knew little about these teams from the start.

SLO A getting 10th is a bit of a surprise in that they had a hard run, but if we had asked the question "what are the odds that one of the Bubble teams gets a bad draw and does worse than expected", we would've said the odds were pretty good. It could have happened to any bubble team, and it's almost expected at a Regional like this.

Edit/ I guess I just had very low expectations for predicting Claremont because of how crazy last year got that 4/6 and 8/10 seems pretty good to me.
avatar
Posts : 43
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2019-11-19
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:31 pm
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
but tbh I'd say Claremont this year was crazier and more unpredictable than last year. The same teams that surprised me by not making it last year (Scripps A and SLO A) both didn't make it this year, meanwhile the "surprise" teams that made it last year like LMU and Moorpark were more shocking on paper than it was in real life. This year, not only were the teams that earned bids surprising (really wasn't expecting ASU E or SLO D), but round results were extremely surprising as well. SB taking two off UCLA, ASU E taking two off of SLO A, Scripps A splitting with Claremont B and CP Pomona B. These were all results that I wouldn't have predicted coming in. I had 4/6 as well, but it was still a very unpredictable regionals
GameCockMock
Posts : 16
Reputation : 29
Join date : 2019-11-20
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:50 am
Message reputation : 100% (2 votes)
Texas A not making it out of Norman has got to be the most surprising non-bid of the weekend. They dropped more ballots than their teams did at UCLAssic, Happy Valley and Rice Bowl COMBINED. After those impressive invitational results and seeing them in-person I was expecting a nationals push. Maybe MAIMD jinxed them with the comment that they had made it out of Regionals 12 years straight... It'll be interesting to see if their B/C team can save the season
avatar
Posts : 43
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2019-11-19
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:05 pm
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
I agree with the Texas A comment. One could say that the 4 bids played a role, but they were 3-3 going into round 4 so it didn't play that much of a role. There were some funky results from Norman.
avatar
Posts : 9
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2019-11-18
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:50 pm
Message reputation : 100% (3 votes)
I think OU A's performance warrants attention as well. For a team which doesn't have a strong track record of making it through to ORCS, they were really on a mission this year and it showed.
avatar
Posts : 2
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2020-02-05
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:11 pm
Also from the Norman regional, no team scored a perfect 8-0 nor did any team have 6 ballots. The ranks went from 7-1, 7-1, 7-1, to 5-3.
Highfalutincitylawyer
Posts : 4
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2020-02-03
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:47 pm
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
I think the Texas A results speak more to the underrated strength of the regional than their under performance. They went 2-4 against Central Missouri B, UTD, and Rice B, all strong teams, especially Rice B, who will be a very tough match up for anyone at Memphis. They have virtually the same team as last year when they took a ballot from Rhodes A and nearly one from Rhodes B. Definitely a dark horse candidate for Nats
avatar
Posts : 16
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2020-01-21
Location : "The Midlands"
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:38 pm
Highfalutincitylawyer wrote:I think the Texas A results speak more to the underrated strength of the regional than their under performance. They went 2-4 against Central Missouri B, UTD, and Rice B, all strong teams, especially Rice B, who will be a very tough match up for anyone at Memphis. They have virtually the same team as last year when they took a ballot from Rhodes A and nearly one from Rhodes B. Definitely a dark horse candidate for Nats


Looking at the Top 6 at Norman you can see they all hit each other in the final round too. RiceB v. Hendrix; Central Mo v. Rhodes B; Oklahoma v. Arkansas B was a 5-1 v. 5-1; 5-1 v. 5-1; and 5-1 v. 4-2. RiceB +7,+11 was a pretty clear win over a Hendrix team that had a funky split in R3 -19, + 5 against Central Mo A and then Rhodes B took both against Central Mo A with +4, +4 and Rhodes got Defs for R4 which matters at least a little. Oklahoma had the easier path to their 7-1 than the other two teams (Rice B and RhodesB) though Arkansas B had some okay results that was the only one in that group of 6 that wasn't on the pre regional list to possibly break out. Arkansas A wound up picking up two from Central MO B to get to their 5-3. The category doesn't usually come into play but he PD in Norman was wild, in that Top 4 + Hon mention you have Hendrix with a -1 PD and the rest are +46, +59, +61, +65 with the hon mention the highest of the bunch. That Rhodes D tie ballot in R3 turned into a big deal there.

I think your "underrated strength" is about dead on for that regional... although oddly enough Texas A appears to have had one of the slightly easier draws possible. Also worth noting a 5-3 bye team that was basically the 7th place team. 4 bids clearly creates some chaos but in the end it's not far off from the original predictions on here.
avatar
Posts : 9
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2019-11-18
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:45 pm
I think Norman was definitely underrated, taking into account that two unranked teams (Rice B and OU A) ended up being on top. Even excluding those two teams you had 6 (CMO A, Arkansas, Rhodes B, Rhodes D, Hendrix, and Texas A) who had gotten enough ballots at Regionals to qualify to ORCS last year. Overall it seems like it was a Regionals which had a lot of good teams and a few mid-tier and a few bottom-tier teams, which made for a bloodbath when there were only 17 teams total.
Highfalutincitylawyer
Posts : 4
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2020-02-03
View user profile

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:21 pm
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
briefly_your_honor wrote:
Highfalutincitylawyer wrote:I think the Texas A results speak more to the underrated strength of the regional than their under performance. They went 2-4 against Central Missouri B, UTD, and Rice B, all strong teams, especially Rice B, who will be a very tough match up for anyone at Memphis. They have virtually the same team as last year when they took a ballot from Rhodes A and nearly one from Rhodes B. Definitely a dark horse candidate for Nats


Looking at the Top 6 at Norman you can see they all hit each other in the final round too. RiceB v. Hendrix; Central Mo v. Rhodes B; Oklahoma v. Arkansas B was a 5-1 v. 5-1; 5-1 v. 5-1; and 5-1 v. 4-2. RiceB +7,+11 was a pretty clear win over a Hendrix team that had a funky split in R3 -19, + 5 against Central Mo A and then Rhodes B took both against Central Mo A with +4, +4 and Rhodes got Defs for R4 which matters at least a little. Oklahoma had the easier path to their 7-1 than the other two teams (Rice B and RhodesB) though Arkansas B had some okay results that was the only one in that group of 6 that wasn't on the pre regional list to possibly break out. Arkansas A wound up picking up two from Central MO B to get to their 5-3. The category doesn't usually come into play but he PD in Norman was wild, in that Top 4 + Hon mention you have Hendrix with a -1 PD and the rest are +46, +59, +61, +65 with the hon mention the highest of the bunch. That Rhodes D tie ballot in R3 turned into a big deal there.

I think your "underrated strength" is about dead on for that regional... although oddly enough Texas A appears to have had one of the slightly easier draws possible. Also worth noting a 5-3 bye team that was basically the 7th place team. 4 bids clearly creates some chaos but in the end it's not far off from the original predictions on here.


The bye team was unusually strong, having students from Rhodes D, Oklahoma B, and Hendrix. It was a team strong enough to take a ballot off of Arkansas A. I haven't been in a  tournament with such a dangerous bye team before.
Sponsored content

Week 1 Regional Results Empty Re: Week 1 Regional Results

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum