State Cup Seeding

When attending the seeding meeting, after trying to determine why we even have these mtgs, it occurred to me that, perhaps, someone didn't think the end of season standings should represent the seedings for State Cup.
Is there any example of such? I'd be curious as to why seeding would deviate from standings. I have no example, but did hear of one particular age group that had some discussion - which, I can't figure out why.

clueless wrote:When attending the seeding meeting, after trying to determine why we even have these mtgs, it occurred to me that, perhaps, someone didn't think the end of season standings should represent the seedings for State Cup.
Is there any example of such? I'd be curious as to why seeding would deviate from standings. I have no example, but did hear of one particular age group that had some discussion - which, I can't figure out why.

I think looking at season-ending standings makes the most sense, BUT I do know of a particular age group where managers "lobbied" for better seeding - not sure what their argument was, but I know it had nothing to do with final standings and in the end they "got their way"....

socmom3 wrote:

clueless wrote:When attending the seeding meeting, after trying to determine why we even have these mtgs, it occurred to me that, perhaps, someone didn't think the end of season standings should represent the seedings for State Cup.
Is there any example of such? I'd be curious as to why seeding would deviate from standings. I have no example, but did hear of one particular age group that had some discussion - which, I can't figure out why.

I think looking at season-ending standings makes the most sense, BUT I do know of a particular age group where managers "lobbied" for better seeding - not sure what their argument was, but I know it had nothing to do with final standings and in the end they "got their way"....

Thanks, must have figured it worked for Health Care - they might as well go against the common sense / majority opinion. Given everyone had to sign the seedings - shame on those for signing. Probably the same story I alluded to, just didn't know the reasoning but was curious. I could see if you are seeded below teams you have beaten every time (multiple times during the year and in tournaments, but would have difficulty understanding any other reasons as everyone would have the same 'excuse' for losses, I'd think.

'Lobbying' - love that description, very appropriate, but I don't think it trumps common sense. If there is one dominant team in a year, I would think the #2 and 3 spot would be the only ones worth lobbying for as you would try to avoid the top dog and hope to get to the final.