I am certainly for the concept of seeding, and have yet to be dissuaded by any arguments to the contrary but would like to hear student views...

Seeding rewards those who have shown great accomplishment throughout the year - criteria already suggested is a viable option.

I also believe seeded teams who are defeated creates more excitement in the competition. You only need to look at Wimbledon as an example...

I do agree, the Moot is definitely a good idea for Next year, but as for this year I think we should leave well alone.
I feel that I was beaten fairly on the day and with all due respect to Louise and Pascale they performed excellently and subsequentally deserve to go through.
The seeding proposal is a good idea, it does help to improve the chances of those who really do want to win the competition, and to help eradicate those who may have less interest within it. This would help those, such as myself and Roberto in particular, as, although an exciting draw came of it, it does feel very disappointing that when you put so much work into something, and want it so badly to have it taken away by a single point in the round is quite disappointing as I said earlier.

I feel that the idea of seeding is a good idea and could be very good in building up to an oustanding final.
I definately felt that Roberto and Matt put in an exceptional amount of hard work towards the case on Friday against Louise and I. I think it was a pity that the moot was in the first knock-out stage and wasn't later on - as both Roberto and Matt, without a doubt, deserved to go much further.
Seeding would also be an excellent reward to constant hard-workers, who have achieved good results and have been motivated throughout the year leading up to the moot.

On the other hand, I think that the idea of seeding would be fairly subjective and some students who may have weaker results throughout the year could prove to be amazing at mooting because they will be more determined and motivated. They could then be at a disadvantage as they could be knocked out very early in the competition whilst they had great potential to go far.

Aside from this, it is a great idea and would definately result in exciting semi-finals and finals in the years to come.

The idea of seeding is indeed an interesting one and i can recognise its benefits (particularly with regard to the current situation i was faced with) however i express concerns about the basis of the concept. The seeding would simply be relatiuve to the laws teachers opinion and with all due respect i think it could ensue much arguement between students. I think that the draw was simply RANDOM and it simply turned out that myself and matt were drawn up against exceptional competition.

I take condolences in my loss knowing that i put in all the work i possibly could and attempted to express my argument in the most articulate manner.

Congrats to the winners,
I intend to get back into the competition and hopefully go on to win it.

I think that seeding would only work if it was decided by a preliminary round, in a similar vein to the surprise preliminary round held this year. As some have said, many people could get average exam results but really excel at mooting, and yet they will not be seeded according to the proposed idea. If we have a preliminary round to decide upon who really are the best mooters, then it would be much fairer.

I think Conor's idea regarding seeding is a good one - a preliminary round would ensure that potentially extremely talented and successful students are not put at a disadvantage, and students whose initial approach to the moot is to work hard would be rewarded and motivated to continue with this approach.