QT TIE-BREAKERS

I am not a fan of the QT tiebreakers.

1. Head to head, perfect, as it should be

2. Goal differential, whoa, whoa, whoa!!! You lost me. What happened to, "team with most wins"???

The current QT rules reward teams for scoring goals, but not for winning. Stranger than fiction, you can't make this stuff up. In the QT, "team with most wins" is NOT a tie breaker.

I think LH got the tie breakers right for end of the year league standings. I think they blew it and left one out for the QT tie breakers.

YES, I know that FCD BLACK suffered under this rule last year. They got ripped off.
NO, my kids don't play for them and I don't know a single person associated with them.

FCD Black got ripped off? I recalled that this topic came up for them last year so I had to go look up the Week 2 QT results from last year to remind myself of what happened.

So I am assuming that you are claiming they got ripped off because they did not get in last year over LP Dalglish? What? Because they had one more win? Well they also had one more loss and a worse goal differential. If the objective is to score more points to get in, why would you not reward the team that more consistently scored points. FCD Black took a loss and failed to score points in one game and LP Dalglish scored points in every game.

Therefore, its a disservice to those on the teams that advanced into the league last year when you say FCD Black was ripped off when those teams played to rules and objectives of the tournament. The league appears to place a higher value on consistency of play, so now that FCD Black is a year older and more experienced, they understand that every game (wins, ties and losses) matters. They are a great team and fortunately have made it back to week 2 again with a chance to get in. Additionally, as luck would have it, they play the same team again as they did last year to perhaps determine their league fate again.

They scored more points? I'm pretty sure you mean goals, points were the same. That's you're argument? Fine.
So, during the season winning games is more important, but during QT goals are what really matter. Very consistent. Can we also have ties for championships? We're encouraging ties, right?

No. I meant points. The two teams were tied in points but one team consistently scored points and went undefeated. Can't argue about LH consistency because there is none. Can't have ties for a championship, but you can to determine who is eligible to compete for the championship (WC group stage?).

Pale Rider wrote:I am not a fan of the QT tiebreakers.

1. Head to head, perfect, as it should be

2. Goal differential, whoa, whoa, whoa!!!  You lost me. What happened to, "team with most wins"???

The current QT rules reward teams for scoring goals, but not for winning. Stranger than fiction, you can't make this stuff up. In the QT, "team with most wins" is NOT a tie breaker.

I think LH got the tie breakers right for end of the year league standings. I think they blew it and left one out for the QT tie breakers.

YES, I know that FCD BLACK suffered under this rule last year.  They got ripped off.
NO, my kids don't play for them and I don't know a single person associated with them.

so 1 win and 2 losses is better than 2 ties and one loss? so you want to "reward" losses

The 10 pt system is nonsense.

3 pts for a win, 1 for draw, tie break is goal diff not goals scored.

WC group stage does not operate on a 10 pt system. Why does youth soccer use 10 pt system for tournaments but not league play?

The two teams used as an example, FCD & LP each had 12 pts in QT last year. But with normal league play & FIFA point system, FCD would have had 4 pts (1-1-1) & LP 3 pts (0-3-0).

whaaaaat?? wrote:The 10 pt system is nonsense.  

3 pts for a win, 1 for draw, tie break is goal diff not goals scored.

WC group stage does not operate on a 10 pt system.  Why does youth soccer use 10 pt system for tournaments but not league play?

The two teams used as an example, FCD & LP each had 12 pts in QT last year.  But with normal league play & FIFA point system, FCD would have had 4 pts (1-1-1) & LP 3 pts (0-3-0).

im not disputing your statement but explain to me how the point system would have given FCD a 1-1-1 record?

FCD had 1 win 1 draw 1 loss = 4 pts

LP had 3 draws = 3 pts

I just don't understand the point of 10 pt system in tourney but not league.

If it's any consolation, results would indicate the better team got into LHGC last year. Daglish was very competitive and ended up finishing 6th. FCD Black finished 4th in Plano Division II.

Talk about tiebreakers mess. League had Liverpool Daglish and FCD Black do PKs just in case the result of FCD White ended in a 3 way tie. All teams might have ended up with one loss but total goals scored. Tournament we were in last year gave the tiebreaker to the team that had given up the fewest goals (not GD) with the second tiebreaker goals scored. Very arbitrary.

Wow! How stressful for all of those girls. I wish them both the best of luck. Hopefully can get those teams, Keegan, Owen, and Andro West in the same league. Think that would be a very competitive division.

Sail7x24 wrote:Talk about tiebreakers mess. League had Liverpool Daglish and FCD Black do PKs just in case the result of FCD White ended in a 3 way tie. All teams might have ended up with one loss but total goals scored. Tournament we were in last year gave the tiebreaker to the team that had given up the fewest goals (not GD) with the second tiebreaker goals scored. Very arbitrary.

Yeah! FCD Black/LP Dalglish please go through the stress of PK's, just in case. LP Dalglish wins PK's, FCD Black is obviously upset. Dalglish goes over to watch or root for Fever (very loudly) and then is brought back down to not enter LHGCL. What an emotional world wind both teams had to go through and could have been possibly avoided - after they are all just 12/13 years old.

Pale Rider wrote:I am not a fan of the QT tiebreakers.

1. Head to head, perfect, as it should be

2. Goal differential, whoa, whoa, whoa!!!  You lost me. What happened to, "team with most wins"???

The current QT rules reward teams for scoring goals, but not for winning. Stranger than fiction, you can't make this stuff up. In the QT, "team with most wins" is NOT a tie breaker.

I think LH got the tie breakers right for end of the year league standings. I think they blew it and left one out for the QT tie breakers.

YES, I know that FCD BLACK suffered under this rule last year.  They got ripped off.
NO, my kids don't play for them and I don't know a single person associated with them.

Not sure if maybe you are new to the soccer scene or not but this is normal.

For example, I just looked up FIVE sample tournaments and found what their tie-breakers are.

For the following tournaments (small sample I looked up): State Cup, Texas Summer Classic, Puma Cup, Plano Labor Day, Austin Labor Day

Every single one of these tournaments have tie breakers in the following order:

1) Points
2) Head to head
3) Goal differential
4) from here out it varies with things like shut outs, goals scored, coin flip, etc.

NONE of these tournaments at any time ever have "Wins" as a tiebreaker.

Imagine the following scenario between a fictional Team A and a Team B who are tied in points, and you tell me if Team A, with the "win" is most deserving to advance.

Team A
----------
Team A vs Team B - 0-0 draw
Team A vs Purple Ponies - 1-0 win for Team A
Team A vs Green Dragons - 0-14 loss for Team A

Team B
------------
Team B vs Team A - 0-0 draw
Team B vs Purple Ponies - 2-2 draw
Team C vs Green Dragons - 1-1 draw


Team A ends up with 1 win, 1 loss, 1 draw, -13 Goal differential
Team B ends up with 0 win, 0 loss, 3 draw, 0 Goal differential

You still say Team A deserves to advance over Team B?

What about this? If you say "wins" should be the tie breaker, isn't "winning" nearly the same as "not losing"? What if the tie-breaker was the team that "didn't lose"? That seems more fair than just going off wins alone.

Why do you count "winning" as uber important but you don't count "losses" as being important at all?

What do you think if Team A won 1 game and lost the other two, they should still advance over Team B who didn't lose any of their games?

Not new. 10 pt system is garbage. Team goes 1-1-1 and is trumped by a team that goes 0-3-0. Garbage. In the 10 pt system a team with 2 wins and a draw, can finish behind a team with 2 wins and a loss, even though the team with the loss, lost to the team with 2 wins and draw. Unbelievable garbage.

Just because it's been done this way for a while, doesn't make it good.

Not new, also not a sheep.

"2. Goal differential, whoa, whoa, whoa!!! You lost me. What happened to, "team with most wins"???"

i agree 1000 percent. wins should be next NOT who killed the weakest team by how much. good job, this always bothered me too...

Pale Rider wrote:Not new. 10 pt system is garbage. Team goes 1-1-1 and is trumped by a team that goes 0-3-0. Garbage. In the 10 pt system a team with 2 wins and a draw, can finish behind a team with 2 wins and a loss, even though the team with the loss, lost to the team with 2 wins and draw. Unbelievable garbage.

Just because it's been done this way for a while, doesn't make it good.

Not new, also not a sheep.

I said nothing about points in my post. I'm asking determining the most deserving teams in a particular situation.

I do have an opinion on the 10 pt system (I agree with it) but it's not even relevant to this. You're of course under no obligation to answer anything I asked you but I am curious what you think.

For example, why you think winning is a better indicator of a team than not losing?

If two teams play the same other teams within a bracket, I say the one with three draws is more deserving of advancing than the team with 1 win, 1 draw and 1 loss.

In my book, a loss trumps a win in determining things in this case.

Forget about points... it's not even relevant here. Let's just talk "who's more deserving" in a particular situation. Your original post didnt even mention the 10 pt system, someone bitched about that later.

Yes, I think winning is more important than not losing. In all competitive sports, winning is the goal. There are many other goals, but winning is always at the top of the list. For that reason, there is a premium for winning.

I admire strong defensive teams in all sports, but if they don't win they really haven't achieved the goal.

Who is more deserving? That depends on what rules you are playing by, but rules that do not place a premium on winning make no sense to me.

I think the pt system being used is absolutely relevant. The 10 pt system places too high a value on scoring goals and too low a value on winning.
Ex. Using 10 pt system
TEAM A's record 2 wins 0 draw 1 loss
1-0 win, 1-0 win, 0-1 loss, goal diff +1,
16 pts

TEAM B's record 0 wins, 3 draws, 0 losses,
3-3 draw, 3-3 draw, 3-3 draw, goal diff 0,
18 pts

Now you tell me, who is more deserving? The 10 pt system says the team that gave up 9 goals is more deserving, because the 10 pt system places far, far, far too high a value on goals scored. Is that an extreme example? Yes it is, but it is a possibility in the 10 pt system.

In a 3 pt system TEAM A would be the clear winner.

FIFA agrees with me. That's why the World Cup uses the 3 pt system.

yep, rewarding a team that can't beat anybody is not only stupid but unfair. playoffs and qualifying is about WINNING games, not avoiding losses...

There is more to soccer than just winning. You act like not getting beat is no big deal. A team that can go the tournament without losing is likely a great defensive team.

IMO, the 10 point system is by far, the best way to go. Especially in youth soccer.

If gives everyone something to fight for.... even in a blowout. In the 3 pt win / 1 pt draw scenario, a team that is losing 6-0 at the half has nothing to play for. They are not going to win the game, they are not going to draw either.

In the 10 pt system however, they can be giant-killers sometimes. An underdog, getting beat big time that scores a last minute goal denies the shutout point from the giant. Potentially let's say giving them a 29 point total after three games (where they won the other games 3-0 or better with shutouts).

Other giants/uber-squads may hold on and grab the three shutouts and walk away with 30 points in group play, ahead of the 29 from the other team.

Makes games interesting all around, for the entire length of the game, blow out or not. There's always something to fight your ass for if you are winning (keep the shutout to get the 1 pt) and if you are getting your ass handed to you, there are likely several other teams that got beat up on too. The team that played hard to the final whistle and got the goal to make it say 7-1... they deserve a point. Their loss should be rewarded more than a team that scored nothing the entire game.

10 pt system is better all around for ALL involved. It keeps everyone on their toes. In a 10pt system tournament the keeper winning a game 8-0 has to stay on her toes, if not she risks alot. In a 3/1 pt system, she and the team risk hardly nothing at all.

There are so many scenarios that make the 10 pt system better. Not even a question.

It's NOT just about winning. It's how you play the game. Can you play offense... can you play defense... can your keeper maintain her composure until the final whistle even in a blowout.

If you be honest with yourself, I think you will find it hard to argue otherwise.

"I looove winning, man! I mean I effin' looove winning! You hear what I'm saying? It's, like, better than losing!"

Ebby Calvin LaLoosh

02Dad wrote:There is more to soccer than just winning. You act like not getting beat is no big deal. A team that can go the tournament without losing is likely a great defensive team.

IMO, the 10 point system is by far, the best way to go. Especially in youth soccer.

If gives everyone something to fight for.... even in a blowout. In the 3 pt win / 1 pt draw scenario, a team that is losing 6-0 at the half has nothing to play for. They are not going to win the game, they are not going to draw either.

In the 10 pt system however, they can be giant-killers sometimes. An underdog, getting beat big time that scores a last minute goal denies the shutout point from the giant. Potentially let's say giving them a 29 point total after three games (where they won the other games 3-0 or better with shutouts).

Other giants/uber-squads may hold on and grab the three shutouts and walk away with 30 points in group play, ahead of the 29 from the other team.

Makes games interesting all around, for the entire length of the game, blow out or not. There's always something to fight your ass for if you are winning (keep the shutout to get the 1 pt) and if you are getting your ass handed to you, there are likely several other teams that got beat up on too. The team that played hard to the final whistle and got the goal to make it say 7-1... they deserve a point. Their loss should be rewarded more than a team that scored nothing the entire game.

10 pt system is better all around for ALL involved. It keeps everyone on their toes. In a 10pt system tournament the keeper winning a game 8-0 has to stay on her toes, if not she risks alot. In a 3/1 pt system, she and the team risk hardly nothing at all.

There are so many scenarios that make the 10 pt system better. Not even a question.

It's NOT just about winning. It's how you play the game. Can you play offense... can you play defense... can your keeper maintain her composure until the final whistle even in a blowout.

If you be honest with yourself, I think you will find it hard to argue otherwise.

i disagree and think the system in place sucks the sweat off a dead man's back...

Tie breaker should be based on which teams has the hottest moms!!

In your scenario Team A and Team B never played each other so determining who deserves it more is really subjective...So anyway it is determined which team should move on will leave the other feeling slighted...If they played in the same group your scenario would not play out because team a would have a 3-3 tie in there and it is a little more clear who deserves to move on

$occerF@n wrote:In your scenario Team A and Team B never played each other so determining who deserves it more is really subjective...So anyway it is determined which team should move on will leave the other feeling slighted...If they played in the same group your scenario would not play out because team a would have a 3-3 tie in there and it is a little more clear who deserves to move on

Obviously. No matter. On Aug 23 we go back to league play and the 3 pt system.

Anarchy wrote:Tie breaker should be based on which teams has the hottest moms!!

I'll need to be a judge for this.