Who is playing in LH Qualifying Tourny?

Don't underestimate the power of being seeded well. DT Red is seeded #1 so their toughest match is the #10 seed. The #1 and #2 seeds are very likely to re-qualify. I wonder how this has played out at this age in previous years.

hombre wrote:Don't underestimate the power of being seeded well. DT Red is seeded #1 so their toughest match is the #10 seed. The #1 and #2 seeds are very likely to re-qualify. I wonder how this has played out at this age in previous years.

I agree this can be very beneficial, especially if they could qualify and be "in" the first week, but they will have to play week 2.  Correct?  They may play some bet strong competition in week 2.

hombre wrote:Don't underestimate the power of being seeded well. DT Red is seeded #1 so their toughest match is the #10 seed. The #1 and #2 seeds are very likely to re-qualify. I wonder how this has played out at this age in previous years.

Which is exactly my point... Seeding does matter and if it isn't done correctly then it can really mess up teams that otherwise would get in. Which is why I don't think it is fair that teams that didn't play well enough to stay in LH deserve to get the 1-4 spot just bc they were already in LH.  I mean, really, why should they get these spots.  LH is going to get 4 teams to fill those spots regardless of who it is, so why should it matter to them to give preferential treatment to those 4 teams.  It should be done fairly, and unfortunately it is not.  Especially when you look at the results from King Tut... and even if you don't, look at ones that were played last year, look at QT from last year and see that some of these teams that have the 1-4 spot were beat by teams that didn't make it in.
In response to your other question, well... for the last few years, either all of those teams that had to re-qualify fell apart or last year only 1 stayed intact and played in the QT last year as the #1 seed in Round 1 and failed to re-qualify in Round 2 coming in 3rd in their bracket.  This year, all 4 teams are playing in the QT.

QT looks pretty simple and fair to me. Top seeds are those who played LH last year. Following that teams that did well in PPl --Stark and Keegan. Seems fair this year and no reason to include Tut or Puma for brackets but use a years worth of play instead.

mommabear1 wrote:Any new thoughts after King Tut?  

I guess I will revise my predictions a bit.  Maybe DT Pane isn't ready.  Based on scores (I didn't catch any of their games), I think new Coach and many new team members may need more time to gel before they can qualify.

Unfortunate Keegan played Puma...I wanted to see them.  

I guess I'll keep my predictions of Keegan, Stark and FWFC.... next could be Andro West.  But FC Dallas West Black (according to scores) seemed strong...they look to have a really good chance to requalify.

But perhaps Mutiny 02 Hason was a surprise?  They seemed strong but played in the Silver so I don't know how they would match up to Stark, Keegan, FWFC.  

Played Stark and Keegan in PPL last season and tied both 1-1.

Nice

Goalkick wrote:

hombre wrote:Don't underestimate the power of being seeded well. DT Red is seeded #1 so their toughest match is the #10 seed. The #1 and #2 seeds are very likely to re-qualify. I wonder how this has played out at this age in previous years.

Which is exactly my point... Seeding does matter and if it isn't done correctly then it can really mess up teams that otherwise would get in. Which is why I don't think it is fair that teams that didn't play well enough to stay in LH deserve to get the 1-4 spot just bc they were already in LH.  I mean, really, why should they get these spots.  LH is going to get 4 teams to fill those spots regardless of who it is, so why should it matter to them to give preferential treatment to those 4 teams.  It should be done fairly, and unfortunately it is not.  Especially when you look at the results from King Tut... and even if you don't, look at ones that were played last year, look at QT from last year and see that some of these teams that have the 1-4 spot were beat by teams that didn't make it in.
In response to your other question, well... for the last few years, either all of those teams that had to re-qualify fell apart or last year only 1 stayed intact and played in the QT last year as the #1 seed in Round 1 and failed to re-qualify in Round 2 coming in 3rd in their bracket.  This year, all 4 teams are playing in the QT.

Man you sound bitter...All you had to do last year is win 1 game 1-0 and score a goal somewhere else during that second weekend and you were in...I know our teams Tut results are not indicative of their ability. That tourney was more about figuring out who plays where and what formation as we have had some turnover like many other teams. The focus wasn't as much on winning (like last year) since results don't matter. I would guess that was a similar mind set for most of the coaches at the Tut.

KopDad wrote:

Goalkick wrote:

hombre wrote:Don't underestimate the power of being seeded well. DT Red is seeded #1 so their toughest match is the #10 seed. The #1 and #2 seeds are very likely to re-qualify. I wonder how this has played out at this age in previous years.

Which is exactly my point... Seeding does matter and if it isn't done correctly then it can really mess up teams that otherwise would get in. Which is why I don't think it is fair that teams that didn't play well enough to stay in LH deserve to get the 1-4 spot just bc they were already in LH.  I mean, really, why should they get these spots.  LH is going to get 4 teams to fill those spots regardless of who it is, so why should it matter to them to give preferential treatment to those 4 teams.  It should be done fairly, and unfortunately it is not.  Especially when you look at the results from King Tut... and even if you don't, look at ones that were played last year, look at QT from last year and see that some of these teams that have the 1-4 spot were beat by teams that didn't make it in.
In response to your other question, well... for the last few years, either all of those teams that had to re-qualify fell apart or last year only 1 stayed intact and played in the QT last year as the #1 seed in Round 1 and failed to re-qualify in Round 2 coming in 3rd in their bracket.  This year, all 4 teams are playing in the QT.

Man you sound bitter...All you had to do last year is win 1 game 1-0 and score a goal somewhere else during that second weekend and you were in...I know our teams Tut results are not indicative of their ability.  That tourney was more about figuring out who plays where and what formation as we have had some turnover like many other teams.  The focus wasn't as much on winning (like last year) since results don't matter.  I would guess that was a similar mind set for most of the coaches at the Tut.

I am not sure who goalkick is(not sure if a Keegan parent or not)... but I agree Kopdad.. we (Keegan) only had to win one game.. or score a goal in the 2nd round and we could not do that .. so NO we did not deserve to play in LH last year and to be honest if we cannot win our group this weekend we do not deserve it again... so thats that.. lets let the girls show what they can do on the field instead of complaining about seeding..

soccermom13 wrote:

KopDad wrote:

Goalkick wrote:

hombre wrote:Don't underestimate the power of being seeded well. DT Red is seeded #1 so their toughest match is the #10 seed. The #1 and #2 seeds are very likely to re-qualify. I wonder how this has played out at this age in previous years.

Which is exactly my point... Seeding does matter and if it isn't done correctly then it can really mess up teams that otherwise would get in. Which is why I don't think it is fair that teams that didn't play well enough to stay in LH deserve to get the 1-4 spot just bc they were already in LH.  I mean, really, why should they get these spots.  LH is going to get 4 teams to fill those spots regardless of who it is, so why should it matter to them to give preferential treatment to those 4 teams.  It should be done fairly, and unfortunately it is not.  Especially when you look at the results from King Tut... and even if you don't, look at ones that were played last year, look at QT from last year and see that some of these teams that have the 1-4 spot were beat by teams that didn't make it in.
In response to your other question, well... for the last few years, either all of those teams that had to re-qualify fell apart or last year only 1 stayed intact and played in the QT last year as the #1 seed in Round 1 and failed to re-qualify in Round 2 coming in 3rd in their bracket.  This year, all 4 teams are playing in the QT.

Man you sound bitter...All you had to do last year is win 1 game 1-0 and score a goal somewhere else during that second weekend and you were in...I know our teams Tut results are not indicative of their ability.  That tourney was more about figuring out who plays where and what formation as we have had some turnover like many other teams.  The focus wasn't as much on winning (like last year) since results don't matter.  I would guess that was a similar mind set for most of the coaches at the Tut.

I am not sure who goalkick is(not sure if a Keegan parent or not)... but I agree Kopdad.. we (Keegan) only had to win one game.. or score a goal in the 2nd round and we could not do that .. so NO we did not deserve to play in LH last year and to be honest if we cannot win our group this weekend we do not deserve it again... so thats that.. lets let the girls show what they can do on the field instead of complaining about seeding..

Refreshing attitude. But - We wouldn't have a forum if everyone took your just-play-ball attitude instead of complain about every ref, game, and nasty tackle.

Man you sound bitter...All you had to do last year is win 1 game 1-0 and score a goal somewhere else during that second weekend and you were in...I know our teams Tut results are not indicative of their ability.  That tourney was more about figuring out who plays where and what formation as we have had some turnover like many other teams.  The focus wasn't as much on winning (like last year) since results don't matter.  I would guess that was a similar mind set for most of the coaches at the Tut.[/quote]

Your right shouldn't have been an issue. Since "all you had to do was win 1 game and score a goal somewhere else" I have pasted a couple of brackets below from LH week 2 last year and you can let me know which team your team would have beaten and in addition which team would you have scored a goal against. I will be very interested in seeing your response. It shouldn't be a problem should it?


Bracket F
1: LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS THOMPSON (
2: ANDROMEDA FC 02G (TXN)
3: FORT WORTH FC 02 WHITE (TXN)
4: SOLAR CHELSEA 02G STARK (TXN)

Bracket G
1: STING CENTRAL 02G (PARKER) (TXN)
2: FC DALLAS 02G WEST (TXN)
3: LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS KEEGAN (JONES) (TXN)
4: LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS RUSH (TXN)

9876 wrote:
Man you sound bitter...All you had to do last year is win 1 game 1-0 and score a goal somewhere else during that second weekend and you were in...I know our teams Tut results are not indicative of their ability.  That tourney was more about figuring out who plays where and what formation as we have had some turnover like many other teams.  The focus wasn't as much on winning (like last year) since results don't matter.  I would guess that was a similar mind set for most of the coaches at the Tut.

Your right shouldn't have been an issue.  Since "all you had to do was win 1 game and score a goal somewhere else" I have pasted a couple of brackets below from LH week 2 last year and you can let me know which team your team would have beaten and in addition which team would you have scored a goal against.   I will be very interested in seeing your response.  It shouldn't be a problem should it?


Bracket F
1: LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS THOMPSON (
2: ANDROMEDA FC 02G (TXN)  
3: FORT WORTH FC 02 WHITE (TXN)  
4: SOLAR CHELSEA 02G STARK (TXN)  

Bracket G
1: STING CENTRAL 02G (PARKER) (TXN)  
2: FC DALLAS 02G WEST (TXN)  
 3: LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS KEEGAN (JONES) (TXN)  
4: LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS RUSH (TXN)   [/quote]

Based on your's and Goalkicks apparent assessment of the relegated LH teams, the obvious choice would be FCD West, because the bottom 4 teams obviously didn't deserve to be in LH anyways because they always lose to those PPL or APL listed teams in other tournaments. And our girls have played every one of those teams listed at some point and scored at least once so I know it is possible.

"Based on your's and Goalkicks apparent assessment of the relegated LH teams, the obvious choice would be FCD West, because the bottom 4 teams obviously didn't deserve to be in LH anyways because they always lose to those PPL or APL listed teams in other tournaments. And our girls have played every one of those teams listed at some point and scored at least once so I know it is possible."

First of all it wasn't my assessment all of the bottom 4 teams didn't deserve to be in LH. Whether those 4 teams qualify or don't qualify is of no concern to me, but what bothers me beyond belief is when some teams are given a gift by the bracketing gods, and then make comments to other teams like "just win 1 game" and stop complaining, when there is no likely way their team would have been able to do it.

Was it possible? Well it is possible I will win the lottery this week, but I am not banking on it, so I did some research.

Against teams in bracket F, your team have played 3 of the teams(according to GotSoccer) w 0, L 7, T 1, and gave up 25 goals in those 8 games(I ran out of fingers and toes, so you you might want to double check my math on goals against)

Against teams in bracket G you have played all of the teams. You did win 1 once(does happen to be against the FCD black team that you referenced), tied once(also against FCD Black) lost 5 and scored 1 goal while giving up 12(I only ran out of fingers that time).

Since you don't get to play the same team twice in qualifying I would say it would be very unlikely that your team would have been able to "win 1 game" and "score a goal" in another game against those pools.

But you never know, somone has to win the lottery, or just have to beat a team that finished 28th/29 teams in Plano league to qualify for LH(which is kind of like winning the lottery).

9876 wrote:"Based on your's and Goalkicks apparent assessment of the relegated LH teams, the obvious choice would be FCD West, because the bottom 4 teams obviously didn't deserve to be in LH anyways because they always lose to those PPL or APL listed teams in other tournaments. And our girls have played every one of those teams listed at some point and scored at least once so I know it is possible."

First of all it wasn't my assessment all of the bottom 4 teams didn't deserve to be in LH.   Whether those 4 teams qualify or don't qualify is of no concern to me, but what bothers me beyond belief is when some teams are given a gift by the bracketing gods, and then make comments to  other teams like "just win 1 game" and stop complaining,  when there is no likely way their team would have been able to do it.

Was it possible?  Well it is possible I will win the lottery this week, but I am not banking on it, so I did some research.

Against teams in bracket F, your team have played 3 of the teams(according to GotSoccer) w 0, L 7, T 1, and gave up 25 goals in those 8 games(I ran out of fingers and toes, so you you might want to double check my math on goals against)

Against teams in bracket G you have played all of the teams.  You did win 1 once(does happen to be against the FCD black team that you referenced), tied once(also against FCD Black) lost 5 and scored 1 goal while giving up 12(I only ran out of fingers that time).

Since you don't get to play the same team twice in qualifying I would say it would be very unlikely that your team would have been able to "win 1 game" and "score a goal" in another game against those pools.  

But you never know, somone has to win the lottery, or just have to beat a team that finished 28th/29 teams in Plano league to qualify for LH(which is kind of like winning the lottery).

So what you are telling me is that we were able to beat one of those teams and at least score a goal against another...thank you for pointing that out. That is the beauty of this age, you never know what you are going to get. Logically, we probably shouldn't have made it past the first weekend, but we tied the #8 team in D1 and won another. That gave us a chance the second weekend and we beat the team we were supposed to beat.

9876 wrote:
Man you sound bitter...All you had to do last year is win 1 game 1-0 and score a goal somewhere else during that second weekend and you were in...I know our teams Tut results are not indicative of their ability.  That tourney was more about figuring out who plays where and what formation as we have had some turnover like many other teams.  The focus wasn't as much on winning (like last year) since results don't matter.  I would guess that was a similar mind set for most of the coaches at the Tut.

Your right shouldn't have been an issue.  Since "all you had to do was win 1 game and score a goal somewhere else" I have pasted a couple of brackets below from LH week 2 last year and you can let me know which team your team would have beaten and in addition which team would you have scored a goal against.   I will be very interested in seeing your response.  It shouldn't be a problem should it?


Bracket F
1: LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS THOMPSON (
2: ANDROMEDA FC 02G (TXN)  
3: FORT WORTH FC 02 WHITE (TXN)  
4: SOLAR CHELSEA 02G STARK (TXN)  

Bracket G
1: STING CENTRAL 02G (PARKER) (TXN)  
2: FC DALLAS 02G WEST (TXN)  
 3: LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS KEEGAN (JONES) (TXN)  
4: LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS RUSH (TXN)   [/quote]


The flaw in your argument is that you are ignoring Week 1.  Qualifying was a 2 week process.  Some teams did have much easier draws in Week 2  . . . because they earned it with their performance in Week 1.

So what you are telling me is that we were able to beat one of those teams and at least score a goal against another...thank you for pointing that out. That is the beauty of this age, you never know what you are going to get. Logically, we probably shouldn't have made it past the first weekend, but we tied the #8 team in D1 and won another. That gave us a chance the second weekend and we beat the team we were supposed to beat.

Well no..... Against bracket F teams you haven't won any games and against bracket G teams you did manage to win 1 game but did not score goals against any of the other three teams. And you accomplished this one win over 8&7 games and not 3(like you would in qualifying).

The point I am trying to make is when you get a gift from the bracketing gods, don't deride other teams results simply becuase they weren't as fortunate with their matchups. I will respond to your week 1 comment in a response to your friend's post

The flaw in your argument is that you are ignoring Week 1. Qualifying was a 2 week process. Some teams did have much easier draws in Week 2 . . . because they earned it with their performance in Week 1.
So I'll make the following assumptions from your post:

1) You believe week 1 results matter
2) If you did better than other teams in week 1 you should have any easier draw in week 2 and
3) Your qualifying path was easier than teams in f&g?

Well I did some research on your LH1 results, and they were in fact good. You did manage to finish 3rd place out of 4 teams. The first place team obviously qualified for D1, the 2nd place in your pool (that you lost to) was placed in bracket F.....

See where I am going with this? Your theory of "earning" easier draws based on week 1 results doesn't really apply at least in relationship with other teams in your week 1 pool.

So now your justification is..........

9876 wrote:The flaw in your argument is that you are ignoring Week 1.  Qualifying was a 2 week process.  Some teams did have much easier draws in Week 2  . . . because they earned it with their performance in Week 1.
So I'll make the following assumptions from your post:

1) You believe week 1 results matter
2) If you did better than other teams in week 1 you should have any easier draw in week 2 and
3) Your qualifying path was easier than teams in f&g?

Well I did some research on your LH1 results, and they were in fact good. You did manage to finish 3rd place out of 4 teams.   The first place team obviously qualified for D1, the 2nd place in your pool (that you lost to) was placed in bracket F.....

See where I am going with this?  Your theory of "earning" easier draws based on week 1 results doesn't really apply at least in relationship with other teams in your week 1 pool.

So now your justification is..........

No justification is needed.  30 teams qualified last year based on the results of the tournament as formatted by LH.  

Whether lucky or good - the bottom line is a team only needed 1 pt in Week 1 and 8 pts in Week 2 to qualify for LH last year.  Some teams did what they needed to do in the brackets to which they were assigned - some will regroup and try again this year - some are doing research and still complaining.

No justification is needed. 30 teams qualified last year based on the results of the tournament as formatted by LH.

Whether lucky or good - the bottom line is a team only needed 1 pt in Week 1 and 8 pts in Week 2 to qualify for LH last year. Some teams did what they needed to do in the brackets to which they were assigned - some will regroup and try again this year - some are doing research and still complaining.

Finally a post where I can agree with the main point. And if a little bracketing luck helped me achieve a desired result, I would have no problem admitting to it, or would spend no time apologizing for it.

How many spots are there in the 02's? The LHGCL website says 4 but I had someone tell me there are 6.

Why would there be 6?  That would mean that 2 teams didn't make somewhere up the chain and that teams got moved up to open 2 extra spots in D3... I sure would like to know if that is true... but I doubt it is...
Since LH requires the bye fee to be paid by July 8th, which means that any team that didn't make most likely wouldn't have paid their bye fee... and therefore LH would have known about it and modified the QT Playing Format before it was posted online... I am sure there are several scenarios that could change that and a team or club could have paid the bye fee and then the team still fell apart... But I sure would hope LH would let us know.

Anyone out there have any info to share?

Goalkick wrote:

Anyone out there have any info to share?

From page 3 of the following document: http://girlsclassicleague.com/2013QTFormatsfinal.pdf