May - Aug 2013 Tournaments for 03's - Complete List with Teams

UEFA wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

UEFA wrote:

Gunner9 wrote:

GrandTXSoccer wrote:I'll be honest, of the top 3 the only one I'd like to see play is SRSA, only because I'm curious as to who is on the roster.  As far as the other two teams, if it was broken down into 8 groups of 5 then I just don't see it being worth their while. Admittedly I haven't looked up the king tut rules so maybe they will pool the teams in a more competitive matter but if not what good would it do SRSA, DTS, or LP Elite to play games against teams ranked in the mid 20's and higher and win 4-0 or worse?

The whole point of starting the King Tut was to give teams 4 competitive matches prior to qualifying, so every attempt is made to group teams accordingly.  That said, I see no problem with the top teams taking a pass.  Their QT seed will still be strong.

I find it strange from past years the top FBR seeds were present at the tournament and not sitting it out.

My guess is that the proximity to QT (i.e. LH saying that the QT may start mid-week this year), has something to do with it.  For the '01's TuT was a full 2 weeks before QT and for the '02's a full week.

If memory serves me correct, Solar Red '01 (consensus #1 heading into QT) played against Boys in TuT.  Didn't affect them as they were still the #1 QT seed.

Last year, FCD '02 Premier was the consensus #1 heading into QT and they played up against '01's in TuT, and were still the #1 QT seed.

So SRSA '03 not playing at all probably won't impact their seed and I would be shocked if they are not the #1 QT seed, although it really won't matter for them.

The interesting thing will be to see if the seeding committee "penalizes" the other top teams that don't appear to be playing this year.  Last year, Solar '02 Gio (consensus top 10) skipped both TuT and Puma and got hit with a #14 seed.

Again, the seeding will have no impact at all on DT South, LP Elite, and Sting.  Those teams will all qualify easily for D1.

At the end of the day, the seeding process is always hazy.  Don't bother trying to predict it or manipulate it by playing, not playing, requesting a stronger pool, requesting a weaker pool.  The seeding will generally be pretty accurate, but there are guaranteed to be some head-scratchers.  The fact of the matter is, 85-90% of the time, where a team is seeded for QT makes no difference on where they end up qualifying.  Sure, 10-15% of the time it can be a factor, but you can't predict or control it, so don't bother trying.

Bottom line, any coach worth their salt is making their decisions on whether or not to play, where to play, and what level of competition to request, SOLELY based on what they think will best prepare their team to be playing at their absolute peak during the QT.  Do that successfully, and seeding won't matter.

I don't see that committee has ever penalized a team for not playing nor having a sub par tournament.

bwgophers wrote:

UEFA wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

UEFA wrote:

Gunner9 wrote:

GrandTXSoccer wrote:I'll be honest, of the top 3 the only one I'd like to see play is SRSA, only because I'm curious as to who is on the roster.  As far as the other two teams, if it was broken down into 8 groups of 5 then I just don't see it being worth their while. Admittedly I haven't looked up the king tut rules so maybe they will pool the teams in a more competitive matter but if not what good would it do SRSA, DTS, or LP Elite to play games against teams ranked in the mid 20's and higher and win 4-0 or worse?

The whole point of starting the King Tut was to give teams 4 competitive matches prior to qualifying, so every attempt is made to group teams accordingly.  That said, I see no problem with the top teams taking a pass.  Their QT seed will still be strong.

I find it strange from past years the top FBR seeds were present at the tournament and not sitting it out.

My guess is that the proximity to QT (i.e. LH saying that the QT may start mid-week this year), has something to do with it.  For the '01's TuT was a full 2 weeks before QT and for the '02's a full week.

If memory serves me correct, Solar Red '01 (consensus #1 heading into QT) played against Boys in TuT.  Didn't affect them as they were still the #1 QT seed.

Last year, FCD '02 Premier was the consensus #1 heading into QT and they played up against '01's in TuT, and were still the #1 QT seed.

So SRSA '03 not playing at all probably won't impact their seed and I would be shocked if they are not the #1 QT seed, although it really won't matter for them.

The interesting thing will be to see if the seeding committee "penalizes" the other top teams that don't appear to be playing this year.  Last year, Solar '02 Gio (consensus top 10) skipped both TuT and Puma and got hit with a #14 seed.

Again, the seeding will have no impact at all on DT South, LP Elite, and Sting.  Those teams will all qualify easily for D1.

At the end of the day, the seeding process is always hazy.  Don't bother trying to predict it or manipulate it by playing, not playing, requesting a stronger pool, requesting a weaker pool.  The seeding will generally be pretty accurate, but there are guaranteed to be some head-scratchers.  The fact of the matter is, 85-90% of the time, where a team is seeded for QT makes no difference on where they end up qualifying.  Sure, 10-15% of the time it can be a factor, but you can't predict or control it, so don't bother trying.

Bottom line, any coach worth their salt is making their decisions on whether or not to play, where to play, and what level of competition to request, SOLELY based on what they think will best prepare their team to be playing at their absolute peak during the QT.  Do that successfully, and seeding won't matter.

I don't see that committee has ever penalized a team for not playing nor having a sub par tournament.

Respectfully disagree with you there...

Cosmos '01 and FCD '01 Pratt were both consensus top 25 teams (many had Pratt top 20).  Both had poor showings in TuT and got HAMMERED with mid-30's seedings.  Both teams ended up in a 2nd weekend "bracket of death" at QT with Tx. Spirit North and FWFC Black (both currently D2 teams).  Cosmos ended up qualifying where they belonged in D3, but Pratt ended up in PPL for U11, and blew through the league, going something like 18-0-1.

I don't remember any specific teams in the '02's having particularly sub-par TuT or Puma and getting penalized from a seeding standpoint, but Solar Gio did appear to get penalized for not playing in one of those tourneys.  FBR had them at #7, most people had them in the bottom part of the top 10, yet they ended up seeded #14.  Made for a little tougher road for them as they had to go to the 2nd weekend of QT, but they still ended up in D1, and finished in 4th place at U11, 3 spots higher than FBR, 10 spots higher than their QT seed.

Now, let me clarify...  when I say "penalized", I am not implying that the seeding committee willfully and/or intentionally seeded these teams lower than what they felt was correct due to not playing, or having a poor result compared to their history.  I'm sure the seeding committee placed those teams exactly where they thought they should be based on what observations they made and or information they gathered.  What I am saying, is that having a particularly bad weekend on the pitch, or not giving the committee members ample opportunity to see the team play in multiple competitive games, resulted in those teams getting a lower seed than most expected.

Blank77 wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

UEFA wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

UEFA wrote:

Gunner9 wrote:

The whole point of starting the King Tut was to give teams 4 competitive matches prior to qualifying, so every attempt is made to group teams accordingly.  That said, I see no problem with the top teams taking a pass.  Their QT seed will still be strong.

I find it strange from past years the top FBR seeds were present at the tournament and not sitting it out.

My guess is that the proximity to QT (i.e. LH saying that the QT may start mid-week this year), has something to do with it.  For the '01's TuT was a full 2 weeks before QT and for the '02's a full week.

If memory serves me correct, Solar Red '01 (consensus #1 heading into QT) played against Boys in TuT.  Didn't affect them as they were still the #1 QT seed.

Last year, FCD '02 Premier was the consensus #1 heading into QT and they played up against '01's in TuT, and were still the #1 QT seed.

So SRSA '03 not playing at all probably won't impact their seed and I would be shocked if they are not the #1 QT seed, although it really won't matter for them.

The interesting thing will be to see if the seeding committee "penalizes" the other top teams that don't appear to be playing this year.  Last year, Solar '02 Gio (consensus top 10) skipped both TuT and Puma and got hit with a #14 seed.

Again, the seeding will have no impact at all on DT South, LP Elite, and Sting.  Those teams will all qualify easily for D1.

At the end of the day, the seeding process is always hazy.  Don't bother trying to predict it or manipulate it by playing, not playing, requesting a stronger pool, requesting a weaker pool.  The seeding will generally be pretty accurate, but there are guaranteed to be some head-scratchers.  The fact of the matter is, 85-90% of the time, where a team is seeded for QT makes no difference on where they end up qualifying.  Sure, 10-15% of the time it can be a factor, but you can't predict or control it, so don't bother trying.

Bottom line, any coach worth their salt is making their decisions on whether or not to play, where to play, and what level of competition to request, SOLELY based on what they think will best prepare their team to be playing at their absolute peak during the QT.  Do that successfully, and seeding won't matter.

I don't see that committee has ever penalized a team for not playing nor having a sub par tournament.

Respectfully disagree with you there...

Cosmos '01 and FCD '01 Pratt were both consensus top 25 teams (many had Pratt top 20).  Both had poor showings in TuT and got HAMMERED with mid-30's seedings.  Both teams ended up in a 2nd weekend "bracket of death" at QT with Tx. Spirit North and FWFC Black (both currently D2 teams).  Cosmos ended up qualifying where they belonged in D3, but Pratt ended up in PPL for U11, and blew through the league, going something like 18-0-1.

I don't remember any specific teams in the '02's having particularly sub-par TuT or Puma and getting penalized from a seeding standpoint, but Solar Gio did appear to get penalized for not playing in one of those tourneys.  FBR had them at #7, most people had them in the bottom part of the top 10, yet they ended up seeded #14.  Made for a little tougher road for them as they had to go to the 2nd weekend of QT, but they still ended up in D1, and finished in 4th place at U11, 3 spots higher than FBR, 10 spots higher than their QT seed.

Now, let me clarify...  when I say "penalized", I am not implying that the seeding committee willfully and/or intentionally seeded these teams lower than what they felt was correct due to not playing, or having a poor result compared to their history.  I'm sure the seeding committee placed those teams exactly where they thought they should be based on what observations they made and or information they gathered.  What I am saying, is that having a particularly bad weekend on the pitch, or not giving the committee members ample opportunity to see the team play in multiple competitive games, resulted in those teams getting a lower seed than most expected.

Not sure how this applies, or if my memory is 100% accurate, but my DD was on Solar Monty 01 and we didn't do any of these tournaments and we were ranking something liked 6th and QT seeded us in the teens, which was kind of absurd at the time.  We drew a tough bracket and ended up qualifying as team 11 (glad they had the 20 team format at that time) and finished at 6 - back where the FBR had us - just a tougher road then if we would have played in these events and gotten the seed we should have.

LPBarnes03 wrote:Where did you get that info that those teams are not in either?

SteveHolt! wrote:
Going by the FBR, the King Tut list and the Puma list (Puma list could grow - July 12th deadline):

Teams #1,2,3, and 5 are sitting out.  Most would agree they are "good enough."  FC Dallas Gold is "good enough," too, but they are playing - more power to them.

Team #6 doesn't exist?

Teams #7 - #40 are playing in Tut or Puma with the exceptions of #16,19,23,35 and 38.

That's pretty cool that so many teams are playing in one weekend, but how could qualifying actually start on Tuesday if these tournaments matter for seeding?  The QT committee watches games through Sunday, stays up all Sunday night and publishes schedules on Monday?  You find out on Monday that you play Tuesday?

kadro wrote:#38 is listed as playing Puma.

LPBarnes03 wrote:Where did you get that info that those teams are not in either?

SteveHolt! wrote:

LPBarnes03 wrote:Where did you get that info that those teams are not in either?

Team lists from tournaments.  Someone provided the links a couple of pages back on this thread.

silentparent wrote:

futbollove wrote:If you're good enough, seems like a good idea. What's there to prove at a seeding tourney?
All that matters is QT.

um, your seed at the qt? 

futbollove wrote:

silentparent wrote:

futbollove wrote:If you're good enough, seems like a good idea. What's there to prove at a seeding tourney?
All that matters is QT.

um, your seed at the qt? 

Ok, let me say it slower, if..you're..good..enough, there is nothing to prove at a seeding tourney.
In fact, some teams may potentially hurt their seeding by playing.

Blank77 wrote:

futbollove wrote:

silentparent wrote:

futbollove wrote:If you're good enough, seems like a good idea. What's there to prove at a seeding tourney?
All that matters is QT.

um, your seed at the qt? 

Ok, let me say it slower, if..you're..good..enough, there is nothing to prove at a seeding tourney.
In fact, some teams may potentially hurt their seeding by playing.

You can say it as slow as you want, but it isn't true.  My DD's team lost 10 spots in the ranking by skipping these tournaments before QT.  The QT people do not read this board, and they dont pay much attention to league play.  The watch these games in the tournaments and get feedback from coaches.

True, if you are top 5, seeding doesnt matter, but seeding for 6-25 is huge.  My DDs team got seeded poorly, and qualified at 11 - you know what that meant, we played the toughest schedule in the fall of or first season of select - no time to really gel.

GrandTXSoccer wrote:Look at the leadership and you'd probably get close to the answer Herradura. Besides DTS, the Texans can't keep a good team in house. I know they now have DT Scott but its been months since anyone as seen them play, so who knows what they are like.

Trust me, if these clubs could have multiple DI teams they would (the last minute push for a CP solar 03 team) but they just haven't been successful.

I do agree somewhat with SP, skip the Tut and Puma at your own peril. However I think the top 3 have more than proven themselves so there's no worry there. Now Sting G and their new roster and Fever might be a little worried but if Sting G is dropped to 12th or lower they are still most likely going to make it through regardless of seed.

If the committe was going to call around on the 3 at the top sitting out I can't think of anything that would be said about them that would cause anyone to think they aren't one of the top 03 teams. SRSA, no brainer. DTS no roster defections and they've won every 03 tournament they've entered. LP Elite, won TGPL and either wins or comes in 2nd in any tournament they enter. Same as DTS no roster defections beyond having to get at or below 16.

Now Sting G would probably be something along the lines of, lost some players at signing day, normally played tournaments with guest players, core group seems strong.

Blank77 wrote:

futbollove wrote:

silentparent wrote:

futbollove wrote:If you're good enough, seems like a good idea. What's there to prove at a seeding tourney?
All that matters is QT.

um, your seed at the qt? 

Ok, let me say it slower, if..you're..good..enough, there is nothing to prove at a seeding tourney.
In fact, some teams may potentially hurt their seeding by playing.

You can say it as slow as you want, but it isn't true.  My DD's team lost 10 spots in the ranking by skipping these tournaments before QT.  The QT people do not read this board, and they dont pay much attention to league play.  The watch these games in the tournaments and get feedback from coaches.

True, if you are top 5, seeding doesnt matter, but seeding for 6-25 is huge.  My DDs team got seeded poorly, and qualified at 11 - you know what that meant, we played the toughest schedule in the fall of or first season of select - no time to really gel.

futbollove wrote:

Blank77 wrote:

futbollove wrote:

silentparent wrote:

futbollove wrote:If you're good enough, seems like a good idea. What's there to prove at a seeding tourney?
All that matters is QT.

um, your seed at the qt? 

Ok, let me say it slower, if..you're..good..enough, there is nothing to prove at a seeding tourney.
In fact, some teams may potentially hurt their seeding by playing.

You can say it as slow as you want, but it isn't true.  My DD's team lost 10 spots in the ranking by skipping these tournaments before QT.  The QT people do not read this board, and they dont pay much attention to league play.  The watch these games in the tournaments and get feedback from coaches.

True, if you are top 5, seeding doesnt matter, but seeding for 6-25 is huge.  My DDs team got seeded poorly, and qualified at 11 - you know what that meant, we played the toughest schedule in the fall of or first season of select - no time to really gel.

If this board or league play doesn't matter, how did your team fall 10 spots? By your logic, there was no ' ranking' or spots prior to Tut and/or Puma.
Sure , you can play Tut and impress (or depress) the committee, get a favorable seed, or a bad seed. But come QT, you are what you are.

silentparent wrote:

futbollove wrote:

Blank77 wrote:

futbollove wrote:

silentparent wrote:

futbollove wrote:If you're good enough, seems like a good idea. What's there to prove at a seeding tourney?
All that matters is QT.

um, your seed at the qt? 

Ok, let me say it slower, if..you're..good..enough, there is nothing to prove at a seeding tourney.
In fact, some teams may potentially hurt their seeding by playing.

You can say it as slow as you want, but it isn't true.  My DD's team lost 10 spots in the ranking by skipping these tournaments before QT.  The QT people do not read this board, and they dont pay much attention to league play.  The watch these games in the tournaments and get feedback from coaches.

True, if you are top 5, seeding doesnt matter, but seeding for 6-25 is huge.  My DDs team got seeded poorly, and qualified at 11 - you know what that meant, we played the toughest schedule in the fall of or first season of select - no time to really gel.

If this board or league play doesn't matter, how did your team fall 10 spots? By your logic, there was no ' ranking' or spots prior to Tut and/or Puma.
Sure , you can play Tut and impress (or depress) the committee, get a favorable seed, or a bad seed. But come QT, you are what you are.

how naive, your seed matters a great deal and can make or break you....

bwgophers wrote:

silentparent wrote:

futbollove wrote:

Blank77 wrote:

futbollove wrote:

silentparent wrote:

um, your seed at the qt? 

Ok, let me say it slower, if..you're..good..enough, there is nothing to prove at a seeding tourney.
In fact, some teams may potentially hurt their seeding by playing.

You can say it as slow as you want, but it isn't true.  My DD's team lost 10 spots in the ranking by skipping these tournaments before QT.  The QT people do not read this board, and they dont pay much attention to league play.  The watch these games in the tournaments and get feedback from coaches.

True, if you are top 5, seeding doesnt matter, but seeding for 6-25 is huge.  My DDs team got seeded poorly, and qualified at 11 - you know what that meant, we played the toughest schedule in the fall of or first season of select - no time to really gel.

If this board or league play doesn't matter, how did your team fall 10 spots? By your logic, there was no ' ranking' or spots prior to Tut and/or Puma.
Sure , you can play Tut and impress (or depress) the committee, get a favorable seed, or a bad seed. But come QT, you are what you are.

how naive, your seed matters a great deal and can make or break you....

90% of the time futbollove is right, 10% of the time SilentParent is right.

bwgophers wrote:

silentparent wrote:

futbollove wrote:

Blank77 wrote:

futbollove wrote:

silentparent wrote:

um, your seed at the qt? 

Ok, let me say it slower, if..you're..good..enough, there is nothing to prove at a seeding tourney.
In fact, some teams may potentially hurt their seeding by playing.

You can say it as slow as you want, but it isn't true.  My DD's team lost 10 spots in the ranking by skipping these tournaments before QT.  The QT people do not read this board, and they dont pay much attention to league play.  The watch these games in the tournaments and get feedback from coaches.

True, if you are top 5, seeding doesnt matter, but seeding for 6-25 is huge.  My DDs team got seeded poorly, and qualified at 11 - you know what that meant, we played the toughest schedule in the fall of or first season of select - no time to really gel.

If this board or league play doesn't matter, how did your team fall 10 spots? By your logic, there was no ' ranking' or spots prior to Tut and/or Puma.
Sure , you can play Tut and impress (or depress) the committee, get a favorable seed, or a bad seed. But come QT, you are what you are.

how naive, your seed matters a great deal and can make or break you....

90% of the time futbollove is right, 10% of the time SilentParent is right.

silentparent wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

silentparent wrote:

futbollove wrote:

Blank77 wrote:

futbollove wrote:

Ok, let me say it slower, if..you're..good..enough, there is nothing to prove at a seeding tourney.
In fact, some teams may potentially hurt their seeding by playing.

You can say it as slow as you want, but it isn't true.  My DD's team lost 10 spots in the ranking by skipping these tournaments before QT.  The QT people do not read this board, and they dont pay much attention to league play.  The watch these games in the tournaments and get feedback from coaches.

True, if you are top 5, seeding doesnt matter, but seeding for 6-25 is huge.  My DDs team got seeded poorly, and qualified at 11 - you know what that meant, we played the toughest schedule in the fall of or first season of select - no time to really gel.

If this board or league play doesn't matter, how did your team fall 10 spots? By your logic, there was no ' ranking' or spots prior to Tut and/or Puma.
Sure , you can play Tut and impress (or depress) the committee, get a favorable seed, or a bad seed. But come QT, you are what you are.

how naive, your seed matters a great deal and can make or break you....

90% of the time futbollove is right, 10% of the time SilentParent is right.

lol, i will let that go, but my 10% will be a big kick in the pants to some teams who dis a rankings tournament....

bwgophers wrote:

silentparent wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

silentparent wrote:

futbollove wrote:

Blank77 wrote:

You can say it as slow as you want, but it isn't true.  My DD's team lost 10 spots in the ranking by skipping these tournaments before QT.  The QT people do not read this board, and they dont pay much attention to league play.  The watch these games in the tournaments and get feedback from coaches.

True, if you are top 5, seeding doesnt matter, but seeding for 6-25 is huge.  My DDs team got seeded poorly, and qualified at 11 - you know what that meant, we played the toughest schedule in the fall of or first season of select - no time to really gel.

If this board or league play doesn't matter, how did your team fall 10 spots? By your logic, there was no ' ranking' or spots prior to Tut and/or Puma.
Sure , you can play Tut and impress (or depress) the committee, get a favorable seed, or a bad seed. But come QT, you are what you are.

how naive, your seed matters a great deal and can make or break you....

90% of the time futbollove is right, 10% of the time SilentParent is right.

lol, i will let that go, but my 10% will be a big kick in the pants to some teams who dis a rankings tournament....

Can you give me the name of the last team that skipped King TuT and Puma, played boys, or played up against U12's and didn't qualify for the division that everyone expected they would?