[CTcard]

Maybe Pacific got the nod both on the at-large bid and the 2-seed because they are hosting.

...



During the MPSF championship game, criteria for choosing at-large teams was shown.  One of them was how they had done in the last 10 games.



Pacific is 6-4 in its last 10, with loses to Stanford, UCLA, LBSU, UCSB (but does have a win over USC).  It lost BOTH of its last 2 games in its conference tournament.   How such a team is seeded #2 is beyond me.



Quite possibly, each of the two semi-finals will be intra-conference games (MPSF: Stanford-USC; GCC: Pacific-Pepperdine), rather than setting them up as inter-conference games.   Kinda makes you wonder why there are conference tournaments if the committee is going to set it up this way. ("Yeah, we know you had a tournament, but we're going to make it almost meaningless as we're going to make you play yet another game against a conference opponent")

This is a quite strange tournament, and the official NCAA announcement of the bracket is itself opaque.
https://www.ncaa.com/news/waterpolo-men/...ampionship

First off, seven teams is weird. Last year there were eight. I guess this is associated with the Southern California Conference moving to a Division III tournament, though it's not clear to me why they couldn't have added another at-large. (Perhaps something to do with the total number of colleges playing Div. 1 water polo?)

Next, while the top two seeds are specified in the article, it is only specified that they are the top two (Stanford and Pacific) with no further breakdown. Beyond that, no seeding is specified though clearly took place given the various extra games different teams have to play.  

Simply from the bracket and using standard setup procedure, it would appear that the underlying seeding is,
#7 - Bucknell
#6 - Harvard (hosting 6-7 game)
#5/4 - Davis
#4/5 - Pepperdine
#3 - $C
#2 - Stanford
#1 - Pacific

While one would think, of course Stanford is the #1 seed - is that true?

[CTcard]

Maybe Pacific got the nod both on the at-large bid and the 2-seed because they are hosting.

...



During the MPSF championship game, criteria for choosing at-large teams was shown.  One of them was how they had done in the last 10 games.



Pacific is 6-4 in its last 10, with loses to Stanford, UCLA, LBSU, UCSB (but does have a win over USC).  It lost BOTH of its last 2 games in its conference tournament.   How such a team is seeded #2 is beyond me.



Quite possibly, each of the two semi-finals will be intra-conference games (MPSF: Stanford-USC; GCC: Pacific-Pepperdine), rather than setting them up as inter-conference games.   Kinda makes you wonder why there are conference tournaments if the committee is going to set it up this way. ("Yeah, we know you had a tournament, but we're going to make it almost meaningless as we're going to make you play yet another game against a conference opponent")

This is a quite strange tournament, and the official NCAA announcement of the bracket is itself opaque.
https://www.ncaa.com/news/waterpolo-men/...ampionship

First off, seven teams is weird. Last year there were eight. I guess this is associated with the Southern California Conference moving to a Division III tournament, though it's not clear to me why they couldn't have added another at-large. (Perhaps something to do with the total number of colleges playing Div. 1 water polo?)

Next, while the top two seeds are specified in the article, it is only specified that they are the top two (Stanford and Pacific) with no further breakdown. Beyond that, no seeding is specified though clearly took place given the various extra games different teams have to play.  

Simply from the bracket and using standard setup procedure, it would appear that the underlying seeding is,
#7 - Bucknell
#6 - Harvard (hosting 6-7 game)
#5/4 - Davis
#4/5 - Pepperdine
#3 - $C
#2 - Stanford
#1 - Pacific

While one would think, of course Stanford is the #1 seed - is that true?