[2006alum]

Thanks for the lowdown. Somehow I still don't understand the seeding here. According to the list of head-to-head games, USC went 4-1 against the other three, Stanford went 3-2, UCLA went 2-3, and Cal went 1-4. And USC and Stanford split their head-to-heads, as did Cal and UCLA. And yet Stanford is seeded above USC, and Cal above UCLA? Were there some weird results in games outside these four that altered the pecking order? It ironically doesn't matter insofar as even if seeded based on head-to-heads, it'd be USC vs. Cal and Stanford vs. UCLA, but this does seem a bit odd to me.

[2006alum]

Thanks for the lowdown. Somehow I still don't understand the seeding here. According to the list of head-to-head games, USC went 4-1 against the other three, Stanford went 3-2, UCLA went 2-3, and Cal went 1-4. And USC and Stanford split their head-to-heads, as did Cal and UCLA. And yet Stanford is seeded above USC, and Cal above UCLA? Were there some weird results in games outside these four that altered the pecking order? It ironically doesn't matter insofar as even if seeded based on head-to-heads, it'd be USC vs. Cal and Stanford vs. UCLA, but this does seem a bit odd to me.