'04 LH QT Predictions

bwgophers wrote:

MustangGT wrote:I feel the new format does an ok job with top 10 but it fails miserably sorting out bottom 20.

Lfs white is one case but GSSC and Sting West both are easily top 20 teams but have no way to fix it now. Too much of new system is based on initial seeding and less on results.

Don't know that I'd say it "fails miserably", but it doesn't leave much room for error in Week 1.  I'm still more of a fan of the "old" format though, but I would make one key change to that format...

Instead of using the system of forming the week 2 brackets directly from the week 1 brackets and bracket placement (ignoring points), I would re-seed week 2 based on week 1 points.  It makes the process a little more dependent on performance, and less susceptible to seeding errors carrying over from week 1 and affecting week 2 outcomes.

Just MHO...

Right well isn't the goal to get the top 20 teams together? How does a team give up no goals and and not making top 20?

Even more so, how does a team take a single 1-0 loss to a top 3 team unbeaten by any other in 10 months and not get into top 20?

I'm not with either team just stating the obvious that if this new system was to minimize controversy or make final call more even it has missed the mark.

Re all the second guessing. It's just the obvious - the object of soccer is to score goals. Just comes down to that point.

Think some folks are being a bit harsh on Feet White team. However, there arw two sides to this coin and I'm not sure either one helps.

IMHO Feet white is solidly in that 16-23 team range. The problem with these teams is that they NEVER have a chance of beating a top 7-8 team. Yes, teams in this range can keep a game close every so often (even steal a point) but I would question what the girls on that team would gain by having to play that style week in and week out. With the way LH has the season set up, teams from 15-20 will have to go 5 months playing like Feet White did today. Is this really good for them? The second half of the season these teams will be able to open it up a bit more and really play.

We have to give credit where credit is due and the little bit I saw today warrants giving the Feet White girls that credit. What I saw was a frustrated top team that could not put the ball in the net.

All that being said (sorry for the long winded post), Feet was never going to come out on top in that game, just like many others that were able to keep it close in QT. So parents that are upset that "we missed D1 by just a shade" might want to understand that it might be for the betterment of the girls that they get to go out and play soccer with a chance to win week in and week out in D3.

I think they will be better for it in the long run.

MustangGT wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

MustangGT wrote:I feel the new format does an ok job with top 10 but it fails miserably sorting out bottom 20.

Lfs white is one case but GSSC and Sting West both are easily top 20 teams but have no way to fix it now. Too much of new system is based on initial seeding and less on results.

Don't know that I'd say it "fails miserably", but it doesn't leave much room for error in Week 1.  I'm still more of a fan of the "old" format though, but I would make one key change to that format...

Instead of using the system of forming the week 2 brackets directly from the week 1 brackets and bracket placement (ignoring points), I would re-seed week 2 based on week 1 points.  It makes the process a little more dependent on performance, and less susceptible to seeding errors carrying over from week 1 and affecting week 2 outcomes.

Just MHO...

Right well isn't the goal to get the top 20 teams together? How does a team give up no goals and and not making top 20?



Even more so, how does a team take a single 1-0 loss to a top 3 team unbeaten by any other in 10 months and not get into top 20?

I'm not with either team just stating the obvious that if this new system was to minimize controversy or make final call more even it has missed the mark.

Because the objective of the tournament was simple: win your bracket or settle with enough points to be the next 7 to qualify for D1. And that would involve SCORING, NOT sitting back playing a defensive-strategy game in hopes that other teams don't end up with more points than you! You don't play to leave your team's fate in the hands of other teams. That's inexperienced coaching. Losing 1-0 to a top-3 team means nothing. So what. They should have gone for the TIE, worse case, to get the extra point and they would probably have made into D-1. Giving up no goals also means nothing for this tournament, other than the single point per shutout game. Points, points, points, get it now?

MustangGT wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

MustangGT wrote:I feel the new format does an ok job with top 10 but it fails miserably sorting out bottom 20.

Lfs white is one case but GSSC and Sting West both are easily top 20 teams but have no way to fix it now. Too much of new system is based on initial seeding and less on results.

Don't know that I'd say it "fails miserably", but it doesn't leave much room for error in Week 1.  I'm still more of a fan of the "old" format though, but I would make one key change to that format...

Instead of using the system of forming the week 2 brackets directly from the week 1 brackets and bracket placement (ignoring points), I would re-seed week 2 based on week 1 points.  It makes the process a little more dependent on performance, and less susceptible to seeding errors carrying over from week 1 and affecting week 2 outcomes.

Just MHO...

Right well isn't the goal to get the top 20 teams together? How does a team give up no goals and and not making top 20?

Even more so, how does a team take a single 1-0 loss to a top 3 team unbeaten by any other in 10 months and not get into top 20?



I'm not with either team just stating the obvious that if this new system was to minimize controversy or make final call more even it has missed the mark.

I'll take a stab at this. The team that gave up no goals, also only scored 4 goals. Even if they had gotten into D1, it would be a long season for them. They scored less than all of the teams that qualified. Plain and simple. A 1.333333333 GF average won't do the trick. Around 30+ teams scored more goals than they did.

The object of soccer is to score goals.  AND to keep the other team from scoring.

Doesn't do you any good to score 10, if your opponent scores 12.

In the current bracket scheme, Kicks played #5, #31, #48.  D'Feeters played #4, #30, #49.

If the goal is to place the best 20 teams in D1, does this inherently make sense?  What sense does it make that you are not testing teams #15-#25 against each other?  The test this year in qualifying was not to determine 15-25, the test was how bad can you beat up on teams substantially worse or better than you.  

So, Kicks beat #31 4-1 and #48 2-0, and lost to #5 1-5.

D'Feeters beat #30 1-0 and #49 5-0, and lost to #4 0-1.

So, we have established that Kicks beat up on a lower seed better, but lost to a higher seed worse.


If last year's system were in place, the winners would have advanced, the teams who were drilled (and are now dribble to return this next weekend) would be gone, and teams of more comparable ability would be playing each other to decide this on the field.  If the teams were re-seeded based on points, Kicks would have played D'Feeters for a D1 slot.

I am betting we would be hearing a bit more today if Sting Donovan, which clearly should be playing in D1, had lost a 1-0 game against SRFC and had not qualified for D1.  They didn't beat up on a lower team as badly as they should, so they were on the bubble until this morning.  I may be wrong, but I am guessing that more than a few people would have been on here questioning the qualifying approach.

go99 wrote:Standout for me was only 2 teams carrying 30 points.  The shocker was that one of them was pulpdaddy.   Great job on putting together something late and coming thru to deliver the goods.  So is this team something everyone should re-evaluate and consider with the top teams or was this a one off?  Real deal or pretender?

I'll go ahead and bite with this despite it seeming more of the genesis of LW's sarcasm than a genuine question.

The squad had 10 original players from my old LP Barnes team that hovered around the #5-#9 ranking for the last couple of years until a crappy last two tournaments gave us a (deservedly) lower seeding. We added 4 girls, two non-rostered during the Spring, one from GSSC Thunder and one from out of state.

There were probably a good dozen teams that could have, should have, got 30 points but any weekend like this comes down to preparation, a little bit of luck and the strength of the roster you have.

Your team is #1 go99, I don't think you need to worry about who's #2. We both know it's not us. We intend to compete the best we can and finish as high as we can. Beyond that, I'd worry more about the usual suspects.

hooper96 wrote:I think if you've been around long enough around soccer.  Over the years we all know that many people complain about too many games.  IE..King Tut 4 games, QT first week 3 games, Qt second week 3 games (Does not include all the scrimmages in prep for QT).  Teams are going to have bad games and some teams will be left out regardless if you play one week or two although there is less margin or error for first week.  Congratulations to all teams that made D1!


LP ELite
LP Premier
LP Redknapp
LP Owen
Sting Guzman
Sting Donovan
Sting East Chacon
Sting Central Cuevas
Sting North Angel
Dallas Texans
Dallas Texas South
Dallas Texans Red
TX Spirit
TX Spirit North
Feet Black
Mustangs
Kicks
Odyssey
Solar
FCD Premier

Clubs with most teams in D1 (3 ECNL Clubs Outdone by LP and Spirit)

Sting-5
LP-4
Dallas Texans-3
Spirit-2

(Feet, Solar and FCD -1 each)

Congrats to LP and Spirit.

Yep. Until it's time for ECNL, or maybe U13 year.

I always chuckle at parents from other clubs who play the ECNL card. Just a thought for you but it might be your kids place that a player or team from lets say Elite 
will be taking if they do decide to jump over.

PurplePonyPower wrote:I always chuckle at parents from other clubs who play the ECNL card. Just a thought for you but it might be your kids place that a player or team from lets say Elite 
will be taking if they do decide to jump over.

Dang Gina! You didn't just say your kid is better than mine.

Mine ain't crazy enough to play in goal!

PPP...don't assume your whole team will be ECNL players at that age. Very cocky statement considering your DD may never get any better as well as some of your teammates. There are several 04s that could make your squad but have chosen not to even tryout. Many have. Received that coveted phone call but have had the audacity to say "no thanks".

Didn't mention my kid.

Ok enough whinning losers.... Winners I see there is 20 games in the season. What is the time frame these games are played in...

Qualified D1 teams: No independent team qualified this year.
Club productivity: instead of saying which club had the most teams qualified, a different approach would be to say out of all their 04 teams, how many qualified. Solar 100%, LP 10%, etc.

the7wolf wrote:

go99 wrote:Standout for me was only 2 teams carrying 30 points.  The shocker was that one of them was pulpdaddy.   Great job on putting together something late and coming thru to deliver the goods.  So is this team something everyone should re-evaluate and consider with the top teams or was this a one off?  Real deal or pretender?

I'll go ahead and bite with this despite it seeming more of the genesis of LW's sarcasm than a genuine question.

The squad had 10 original players from my old LP Barnes team that hovered around the #5-#9 ranking for the last couple of years until a crappy last two tournaments gave us a (deservedly) lower seeding. We added 4 girls, two non-rostered during the Spring, one from GSSC Thunder and one from out of state.

There were probably a good dozen teams that could have, should have, got 30 points but any weekend like this comes down to preparation, a little bit of luck and the strength of the roster you have.

Your team is #1 go99, I don't think you need to worry about who's #2. We both know it's not us. We intend to compete the best we can and finish as high as we can. Beyond that, I'd worry more about the usual suspects.

Actually it was an actual question.  This team was a big unknown coming into QT and it was a big question as to what would be put together.  And yes there are a lot of could have teams but yours is a did and I am not chalking that up to luck.  As far as the usual suspects go I don't find them all that interesting (you know what to expect) but a budding pulpaneck super power is exciting.  Wish you guys the best of luck and congrats on being in the 30 club.  I am putting you guys on my top 10 D1 big board.

Congrats to STING for placing the most teams and never combing kids to ensure as such. Sting ECNL will be VERY strong eventually. Kudos to all D1 teams it's and honor and deserving of a lot of work!

#of teams has very little to do with quality at the ECNL level. Sting has a lot of work to do in this 04 age group.

Remember, top 20 teams is not div 1. Each team in the group has 19 games to navigate before a true top 10 div 1 is chosen. Good luck to all. This is just the beginning!

So you must not be very good at math Zizou, if I have 75 kids to choose from in the top bracket vs. 30 (assuming no players leave for other clubs ((prob)) a long shot. I would assume you are dead wrong. Either way, I am not taking away from any kid or any family that has made the commitment to end up in D1. Congrats! Sting did WELL!!

If development of talent had anything to do with math and LHGCL . You have a long road a head sparky, sit back and cool your jets ECNL is a distant future for you.

Plus

Lol!

Soccerjunk wrote:

MustangGT wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

MustangGT wrote:I feel the new format does an ok job with top 10 but it fails miserably sorting out bottom 20.

Lfs white is one case but GSSC and Sting West both are easily top 20 teams but have no way to fix it now. Too much of new system is based on initial seeding and less on results.

Don't know that I'd say it "fails miserably", but it doesn't leave much room for error in Week 1.  I'm still more of a fan of the "old" format though, but I would make one key change to that format...

Instead of using the system of forming the week 2 brackets directly from the week 1 brackets and bracket placement (ignoring points), I would re-seed week 2 based on week 1 points.  It makes the process a little more dependent on performance, and less susceptible to seeding errors carrying over from week 1 and affecting week 2 outcomes.

Just MHO...

Right well isn't the goal to get the top 20 teams together? How does a team give up no goals and and not making top 20?



Even more so, how does a team take a single 1-0 loss to a top 3 team unbeaten by any other in 10 months and not get into top 20?

I'm not with either team just stating the obvious that if this new system was to minimize controversy or make final call more even it has missed the mark.

Because the objective of the tournament was simple: win your bracket or settle with enough points to be the next 7 to qualify for D1. And that would involve SCORING, NOT sitting back playing a defensive-strategy game in hopes that other teams don't end up with more points than you! You don't play to leave your team's fate in the hands of other teams. That's inexperienced coaching. Losing 1-0 to a top-3 team means nothing. So what. They should have gone for the TIE, worse case, to get the extra point and they would probably have made into D-1. Giving up no goals also means nothing for this tournament, other than the single point per shutout game. Points, points, points, get it now?

What? No... the point of the tournament is to set teams up for Classic league in a way so that they end up where they belong. Any reasonable person can see that too much of this is based on initial seeding with no chance for teams in the 15-35 range to face off and prove they belong in top 20.

Teams in D3 literally have to wait two years for even the chance to get to D1 now. That is TOO permanent a result based on 3 games and initial seeding. There is no reason the 2nd round could not have sorted this all out.

It really is that simple.

jsullivan81 wrote:

MustangGT wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

MustangGT wrote:I feel the new format does an ok job with top 10 but it fails miserably sorting out bottom 20.

Lfs white is one case but GSSC and Sting West both are easily top 20 teams but have no way to fix it now. Too much of new system is based on initial seeding and less on results.

Don't know that I'd say it "fails miserably", but it doesn't leave much room for error in Week 1.  I'm still more of a fan of the "old" format though, but I would make one key change to that format...

Instead of using the system of forming the week 2 brackets directly from the week 1 brackets and bracket placement (ignoring points), I would re-seed week 2 based on week 1 points.  It makes the process a little more dependent on performance, and less susceptible to seeding errors carrying over from week 1 and affecting week 2 outcomes.

Just MHO...

Right well isn't the goal to get the top 20 teams together? How does a team give up no goals and and not making top 20?

Even more so, how does a team take a single 1-0 loss to a top 3 team unbeaten by any other in 10 months and not get into top 20?



I'm not with either team just stating the obvious that if this new system was to minimize controversy or make final call more even it has missed the mark.

I'll take a stab at this. The team that gave up no goals, also only scored 4 goals. Even if they had gotten into D1, it would be a long season for them. They scored less than all of the teams that qualified. Plain and simple. A 1.333333333 GF average won't do the trick. Around 30+ teams scored more goals than they did.

Completely irrelevant since there was no cross bracket play.

soccatome wrote:So you must not be very good at math Zizou, if I have 75 kids to choose from in the top bracket vs. 30 (assuming no players leave for other clubs ((prob)) a long shot. I would assume you are dead wrong. Either way, I am not taking away from any kid or any family that has made the commitment to end up in D1. Congrats! Sting did WELL!!

All clubs hold open ECNL try outs and kids from different clubs show up to them. Sting definitely has a larger 04 pool of kids to develop into ECNL players, but when it comes down to it, they will select whoever shows up that is the best fit for the coach at the time of ECNL try outs. I haven't seen a lot of loyalty to players based on being in the club for a certain amount of time. There are advantages to being a known entity within the club, but that can also be a disadvantage. Regardless, there will be so much change before ECNL rolls around that it doesn't matter at this point.