It's time for LHQT seeding committee make up for their errors

ralfdallas wrote:

Seven wrote:Maybe you should get a bunch of hippies together
And occupy Lake Highlands

Good thinking! En masse, they can tell THE MAN: "We're not gonna take it! NO! We ain't gonna take it!". That'll get LH's attention focused on their egregious and life-altering seeding errors so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated! Right on!

I was going to suggest occupying Moss Park, but then I realized that would probably be redundant...

CatDaddy wrote:No doubt Lake Highlands jacked up the seeding this year BAD! Their was clearly some politics involved here. I've followed it for the last four years and haven't seen them mess things up this bad since the 98's, it only took about three years for their mistakes to wash out for the 98's.

Why don't you give us an idea of the politics that you believe were "clearly" involved here.

ralfdallas wrote:

Seven wrote:Maybe you should get a bunch of hippies together
And occupy Lake Highlands

Good thinking! En masse, they can tell THE MAN: "We're not gonna take it! NO! We ain't gonna take it!". That'll get LH's attention focused on their egregious and life-altering seeding errors so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated! Right on!

You are both really funny. Not. I can't really find anything the OP just said that is wrong. Clearly it is unlikely to change but when the brackets are this skewed it's frustrating. Like one poster just said it took a few years to straighten out 98's. It's not just any other tournament. It's great that we all saw some great soccer this weekend - I totally agree, but while most of the girls are unaware of the seedings, etc they are very aware they have been working towards playing in LH and it stinks that it's this jacked up.

NewbieMom wrote:

ralfdallas wrote:

Seven wrote:Maybe you should get a bunch of hippies together
And occupy Lake Highlands

Good thinking! En masse, they can tell THE MAN: "We're not gonna take it! NO! We ain't gonna take it!". That'll get LH's attention focused on their egregious and life-altering seeding errors so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated! Right on!

You are both really funny. Not. I can't really find anything the OP just said that is wrong. Clearly it is unlikely to change but when the brackets are this skewed it's frustrating. Like one poster just said it took a few years to straighten out 98's. It's not just any other tournament. It's great that we all saw some great soccer this weekend - I totally agree, but while most of the girls are unaware of the seedings, etc they are very aware they have been working towards playing in LH and it stinks that it's this jacked up.

Maybe it is time for their parents to quit whining and teach their dds that sometimes things in life don't always seem to be fair and you have to deal with it. After all it isn't like any team was not given an opportunity to win their way into LH. Instead of blaming the seeding and/or someone else, better look at how the dds and team can improve and make it next year.

"No doubt Lake Highlands jacked up the seeding this year BAD! Their was clearly some politics involved here."

translation: we had to play some really hard teams. all that money and time flushed down the tubes. i thought that we could take most of this summer off and things would be okay. how can i extricate myself from this mess?

I dont know anyone on the lake highlands committee. My experience with other youth boards indicate that they probably put a lot of time into youth soccer, try to do what's best for their league. They probably don't receive enough thanks from parents whose daughters play in their league. They didn't intentionally mis-seed any team, however there is a chance they got some bad advice from some of the people they rely on to help their seeding. Probably unintentional bad advice, but still bad advice.

I guess all I ask is that they is step back and say are their adjustments that could easily be made to their historical seeding process to make the pools more equitable. If the answer is yes, then that is what they should do.

I have no idea if the re-seeding of the third seeds from the 3 team brackets has been done in the past. IMHO it has yielded more balanced brackets. As I said in my previous post, I don't know anyone on the committee, but I do think it reinforces that they are trying to do what's best. Good luck to all.

I am always amused by the amount of complaining about QT seeding just before the QT without any real suggestion as to how to make the process "better." First, many players play with more than 1 academy team before committing to a single team, which IMO is what they should do. This it in itself skews some results a bit until July 1 before QT. Secondly, even if a team ends up in a "bracket of death" the first weekend of QT, unless they completely crater-which cannot be blamed on the LH board, their destiny is in their own hands to still make it into DI the second weekend, that's the advantage of having 20 teams in DI the first year. IMHO, the accuracy of the seeding at QT is apparent at the end of the first full season, not at the QT itself. Of the #11-20 DI teams, how many finish in the top 10 after the first season? How many of the 10 teams that start in DIII completely dominate their division? Lastly, how many teams do not qualify simply because they got "seeded wrong both weekends?"

I think if you do some research, you might be surprised how close to right LH's is. Obviously, it is not a perfect process and ways to improve it, should always be explored.

No one likes to be put in the toughest bracket, but it does happen from time to time at tournaments, not just at the LH QT. How about a scenario where your team wins 2 and has 1 draw in bracket play, and doesn't allow a single goal, but because the TD has the #1 & 2(whom you tied 0-0) teams in the same side of the bracket, you don't advance because of GD. Oh, and by the way, you drove over 600 miles to get to the tournament.

Just food for thought, but I agree with "silent parent" in that if we teach our dd's to control the things they can control, they will find themselves having many more opportunities to succeed.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, CONGRATS TO ALL OF THE NEW LHGCL TEAMS!

Well said turfin8tor99-!

Supposse a certain team (lets say the freaking Vipers) got a bad deal and a bad seeding at the beggining. Didn't qualify on the first round. O K. the top 12 teams are out of the way and the remaining are reseeded. That team still didn't qualify. How can anybody complain and whine and say that politics are involved?
If you didn't make it on the first and second try, then you just suck and don't deserve to be in first division. Trying hard not to offend anyone but the fact of the matter is you get 2 shots and still don't make up any ground. Give it up and either play on a lower division and quit whining or go rec.

turfin8tor99 wrote:I am always amused by the amount of complaining about QT seeding just before the QT without any real suggestion as to how to make the process "better."

Fair enough. How about this. Whoever is on the seeding committee should start reading some of the ranking threads 3 months before the QT. It doesn't take much time and they would familiarize themselves with the teams before King Tut / Puma.

I am not suggesting that they take the FBR or human rankings as they are but most of the posters on those threads are people who have spent years studying that particular age group. I admit that some posters judgement is suspect however others are quite knowledgeable about the age group and the inner workings of some of the teams. Spend 3 months reading the threads and you could have quite a head start in understanding the age group.

What kills me after every QT tournament is when posters come on and look at the D1 results and say once again the seeding committee got it right. Any chimpanzee could pick the top 15 teams. Its the second 25 teams that are tough and in my opinion, posters on this board were more knowledgeable than the seeding committee about the final 25.

Nooneaskedmebut wrote: Supposse a certain team (lets say the freaking Vipers) got a bad deal and a bad seeding at the beggining. Didn't qualify on the first round. O K. the top 12 teams are out of the way and the remaining are reseeded. That team still didn't qualify. How can anybody complain and whine and say that politics are involved?
If you didn't make it on the first and second try, then you just suck and don't deserve to be in first division. Trying hard not to offend anyone but the fact of the matter is you get 2 shots and still don't make up any ground. Give it up and either play on a lower division and quit whining or go rec.

I am not arguing that the system does not allow a team to overcome an incorrect seeding. I am saying that there are a lot of people on this forum who know the 02 age group better than the seeding committee, in my opinion. They have been following it for years. Why not at least listen to what they have to say?

Again...careful what u wish for...all this bi@#*!ng about not making the top 20 is scary. Don't the top 10 play the bottom 10 in LH??? 12-20 are gonna have a rough fall from what I understand...Can gophers confirm this for me?

Blitzed wrote:

turfin8tor99 wrote:I am always amused by the amount of complaining about QT seeding just before the QT without any real suggestion as to how to make the process "better."

Fair enough. How about this. Whoever is on the seeding committee should start reading some of the ranking threads 3 months before the QT. It doesn't take much time and they would familiarize themselves with the teams before King Tut / Puma.

I am not suggesting that they take the FBR or human rankings as they are but most of the posters on those threads are people who have spent years studying that particular age group. I admit that some posters judgement is suspect however others are quite knowledgeable about the age group and the inner workings of some of the teams. Spend 3 months reading the threads and you could have quite a head start in understanding the age group.

What kills me after every QT tournament is when posters come on and look at the D1 results and say once again the seeding committee got it right. Any chimpanzee could pick the top 15 teams. Its the second 25 teams that are tough and in my opinion, posters on this board were more knowledgeable than the seeding committee about the final 25.

While that would be great but look how many teams didn't even make to signing. Look how much the rosters changed from June 1 to July 1 alone. One day a team could be ranked 20 and the next 30 with the loss of a few key players.

I am going to use Renfro as an example. I watched their 1st game on wk 1 against LP Hansen. I thought for sure FCD would walk away with a big win but SHOCK they tied. Is it because Renfro lost top players to Grubb or did they just have an off game? I know LP Hansen brought their A game and rocked it. I know I expected different results and I don't have a dd on either team. In the end Renfro got it done but from past results they won by bigger margins.

My point is so much has changed for every team with their rosters in the last 4-6wks you can't base seeding on past game results. You have to go with the most up to date data and go from there. Since we all know as of July 1 there has been no moves LH can only get a true good feel from the seeding tournaments.

sideline wrote:Again...careful what u wish for...all this bi@#*!ng about not making the top 20 is scary. Don't the top 10 play the bottom 10 in LH??? 12-20 are gonna have a rough fall from what I understand...Can gophers confirm this for me?

I heard that the top 10 play the second 10 in the fall. Then top 10 play each other and the second 10 play each other in the spring. Don't know this for sure but three different people told me that.

hombre wrote:

sideline wrote:Again...careful what u wish for...all this bi@#*!ng about not making the top 20 is scary. Don't the top 10 play the bottom 10 in LH??? 12-20 are gonna have a rough fall from what I understand...Can gophers confirm this for me?

I heard that the top 10 play the second 10 in the fall. Then top 10 play each other and the second 10 play each other in the spring. Don't know this for sure but three different people told me that.

In general, that will be the case, but there will be exceptions where you will see a few top 5 matchups in the fall.

No matter how you slice it, U11 is a long year for weakest 2-3 teams in D1, and it will test the resolve of the kids and parents on the team.

lovesoccer wrote:

Blitzed wrote:

turfin8tor99 wrote:I am always amused by the amount of complaining about QT seeding just before the QT without any real suggestion as to how to make the process "better."

Fair enough. How about this. Whoever is on the seeding committee should start reading some of the ranking threads 3 months before the QT. It doesn't take much time and they would familiarize themselves with the teams before King Tut / Puma.

I am not suggesting that they take the FBR or human rankings as they are but most of the posters on those threads are people who have spent years studying that particular age group. I admit that some posters judgement is suspect however others are quite knowledgeable about the age group and the inner workings of some of the teams. Spend 3 months reading the threads and you could have quite a head start in understanding the age group.

What kills me after every QT tournament is when posters come on and look at the D1 results and say once again the seeding committee got it right. Any chimpanzee could pick the top 15 teams. Its the second 25 teams that are tough and in my opinion, posters on this board were more knowledgeable than the seeding committee about the final 25.

While that would be great but look how many teams didn't even make to signing. Look how much the rosters changed from June 1 to July 1 alone. One day a team could be ranked 20 and the next 30 with the loss of a few key players.

I am going to use Renfro as an example. I watched their 1st game on wk 1 against LP Hansen. I thought for sure FCD would walk away with a big win but SHOCK they tied. Is it because Renfro lost top players to Grubb or did they just have an off game? I know LP Hansen brought their A game and rocked it. I know I expected different results and I don't have a dd on either team. In the end Renfro got it done but from past results they won by bigger margins.

My point is so much has changed for every team with their rosters in the last 4-6wks you can't base seeding on past game results. You have to go with the most up to date data and go from there. Since we all know as of July 1 there has been no moves LH can only get a true good feel from the seeding tournaments.

Certainly, you should use weigh recent tournaments more than older data however I believe there is more to seeding than just looking at the results from King Tut and Puma. There were teams that used those tournaments to gauge how they would do against tougher competition. (For example, Andromeda and Liverpool Thompson) Some of those teams didn't do well in the tourney and they were penalized for it. A better understanding of the age group in general would, in my opinion, result in a better interpretation of the results of those tournaments.

Blitzed wrote:
Certainly, you should use weigh recent tournaments more than older data however I believe there is more to seeding than just looking at the results from King Tut and Puma. There were teams that used those tournaments to gauge how they would do against tougher competition. (For example, Andromeda and Liverpool Thompson) Some of those teams didn't do well in the tourney and they were penalized for it. A better understanding of the age group in general would, in my opinion, result in a better interpretation of the results of those tournaments.

What makes you assume this? The teams in the Platinum B of King Tut were generally ranked higher than those in the Gold and lower than most of those in the Platinum A by FBR and most human polls prior to this tournament. The teams in this group were very evenly matched, with many ties or 1 goal games. I believe these teams played in this bracket because they belonged there. For some reason, all these teams were punished in the QT seeding except Andro Red (even though 2 of these teams tied Andro Red). All of these teams survived to make either D1 or D3, even though several were in 'brackets of death' against each other again. Had they been seeded in the QT more like platinum teams, they may have all made D1, who knows. Some teams that were favorably seeded ahead of them, even though they were in the gold or silver brackets of King Tut, didn't do so well. Seems to me the results of the King Tut should have been used more by the LH seeding committee.

Rankings and therefore seedings, can be skewed to some degree by guest players in tournaments. The big clubs that have 3, 4, and 5 plus teams in one age group can guest play their best players from their best teams on their less talented/experienced teams. This practice results in a better result for the lesser team, meaning more tournament points, meaning a higher ranking, meaning better seeding. I don't know how much this practice impacts rankings and seedings, but it definitely impacts some results. Since rankings and seedings are based on results, it must have some effect. Having said all that, any team that elevates it's rank and improves it seed in this manner, gets exposed during league play, if they don't belong.